Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Out Among the Telephone Sanitizers
Heh! They're doing it again
Creationists always want a "debate."
This time it's Stephen Meyer challenging Richard Dawkins. Meyer has just published Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (624 pages) and Dawkins has The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (480 pages). What could an hour or two of "debate" possibly add to that?
It wouldn't even be like oral argument before the Supreme Court, itself a dubious practice of little real value. At least the justices might actually clear up some obscure point because they have already have read the complete arguments of the parties.
The only reason creationists want one of these so-called debates is that they know that it is far easier to bullshit people unfamiliar with the full arguments when you do it in person and you are pushing a simple idea (complexity = design = God) against the whole messy history of life and the myriad ways we know about it, which no one person can be expert in.
Oh, and for Rhology, here is another case of clear dishonesty:
"Dawkins' response is disingenuous," said Meyer. "Creationists believe the earth is 10,000 years old and use the Bible as the basis for their views on the origins of life. I don't think the earth is 10,000 years old and my case for intelligent design is based on scientific evidence."
Nor is ID based on scientific evidence ... any more than my own theory of an alien planet builder named Slartibartfast. After all, science tells us that planets are spheres. Our experience of the world tells us that spheres are commonly human constructs and, therefore, designed. We can, then, assign the spheroidness of planets to a designer. Now, it is possible that this designer is God but my personal belief is that it is Slartibartfast because of the revelation passed to us from the sainted Douglas.
Update: Josh Rosenau has put the DI rant in context ... right along side such creationist "luminaries" as Ray Comfort, Karl Priest and Joseph Mastropaolo.
Watches have a HUMAN designer. In fact, virtually all visible evidence of design is human. Thus it would be most reasonable to think that anything which appeared designed would have been designed by humans.
Is there something wrong with this analysis?
Watches are not self-generating ... no matter how many times we put watches together (turn down the lights, put on some soft music and pour a nice wine) there won't be new little watches running around. Furthermore, we can "detect" human design (say, in a stone age tool) because we know the motives (kill, butcher and eat animals) and abilities (relatively slow predator, with unsuitable teeth and no claws) of humans. With an unknown "Designer" we obviously can't know its motives and means and with God, there are (supposedly) no knowing its motives (the ways of God are mysterious) and no limits on its means (omnipotence).
Now if you gave the ID person 10 seconds to speak, followed by an hour and a half of debate by the mainstream scientist you might approach some sort of appreciation for the merit of the ideas involved.
We are ready to provide cleaners daily contracts, week or monthly or years.
Our prices are attractive and competitive
شركة مكافحة الحشرات بالخبر
شركة مكافحة الحشرات بالمدينة المنورة
شركة مكافحة الحشرات بالرياض
شركة تنظيف بجدة
شركة تنظيف بالدمام
شركة نقل عفش بينبع
شركة تنظيف بينبع
شركة تنظيف خزانات بمكة
شركة تنظيف منازل بالقطيف
شركة تنظيف منازل بالاحساء
شراء اثاث مستعمل بالرياض
افضل شركة نقل عفش بجدة
شركة تنظيف كنب شمال الرياض