Monday, April 4

Intelegently Designed Blog

Some of the best minds from the ID movement have gotten their heads together and formed a blog

They haven't gotten comment up and running yet. I can't imagine the outburst when they do. It should be fun.

And in a testimony to how real the ID blog's name, "ID the future" is this post (and this post) at the evolution supporting blog Panda's Thumb anounced that ID had just persuaded one doubter.

I recently read William Dembski's masterful rebuttal of the "case study" on the evolution of the bacterial flagellum by Nick Matzke, who, it seems, has so many noms de guerre he must be hiding something. I am profoundly ashamed. It seems that ID is not only possible, but necessary. This is my public recantation.


He is not kidding.

I will make this a stop at least whenever some new development appears in the ID debate.

Sample post from ID blog:

Critics of intelligent design argue that intelligent design is not a scientific theory. They do so, however, not by confronting the evidence and logic by which design theorists argue for their conclusions. Rather, they do so by definitional fiat. Essentially, they engage in conceptual gerrymandering, carefully defining science so that conventional evolutionary theory falls within science and intelligent design falls without. This device typically goes by the name of methodological naturalism or methodological materialism. Eugenie Scott, director of the evolution watchdog group the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), describes methodological materialism as follows:

"Most scientists today require that science be carried out according to the rule of methodological materialism: to explain the natural world scientifically, scientists must restrict themselves only to material causes (to matter, energy, and their interaction). There is a practical reason for this restriction: it works. By continuing to seek natural explanations for how the world works, we have been able to find them. If supernatural explanations are allowed, they will discourage—or at least delay—the discovery of natural explanations, and we will understand less about the universe."....



HT: World Mag Blog

0 Comments: