| Subject: PLEASE!!! Respond in some way to my original post!!! |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 08/31/04 10:57pm
In reply to:
QUITTNER
's message, "Re: What design would that be?" on 08/31/04 2:24pm
Quittner:
You have not addressed my original challenge. Here it is again.
"State, unambiguously the assumption(s) of ID theory, and allow us to discuss the reasonableness of them in open forum. Allow us to compare them in complexity and ennumeration to the assumptions required by current evolutionary theory."
Let me offer some anecdotal advice regarding what you're trying to do: Shooting holes in MY rowboat doesn't prevent yours from sinking.
You've been essentially espousing the idea that,
"Well, here's all these points that evolutionary theory doesn't address - what about them? If evolutionary theory isn't perfect, then we MUST believe the ONLY alternative - GOD DID IT!!!"
But that's not the case!!! When you poke holes in evolutionary theory, guess what? If you've actually found a *legitimate* objection (which Creation "scientists" have NOT found in the last few decades, maybe longer), then the theory gets modified to include the new data.
Don't you see? You can't just point out a single, inconsequential flaw, and expect the entire world to throw up their hands and say, "Well, crap! We might as well give up!"
And even if you did, you couldn't expect the now-theoryless biological science community to buy the non-scientific, disingenuous, deceit-filled political agenda of Intelligent Design. That'd just be too much.
So, like I said before, you have 2 choices:
1) "State, unambiguously the assumption(s) of ID theory, and allow us to discuss the reasonableness of them in open forum. Allow us to compare them in complexity and ennumeration to the assumptions required by current evolutionary theory."
Let ID stand on its own 2 legs. And let us discuss it as a serious scientific theory (which some claim it is). Let us discuss it, nit pick, and try to take it apart, just like we've been doing to evolutionary theory all this time.
Turnabout is fair play, don't you think? You and others have been crowing, "Evil-lution is wrong!! Here's why! 1), 2), 3), etc." and you've NEVER ONCE said, "Here is an affirmative statement of MY theory, the theory of ID (or Creationism, or whatever)."
Now, here's a little more help - This is an affirmative statement, so let's leave out the, "Well, Evolution fails on this point, so the obvious explanation according to our theory is:" That is right out. You can't define a theory PRIMARILY based on the failure of the competing theory. IT NEEDS to stand on its own. Imagine that evolutionary theory didn't exist, and you had to explain what you believe.
Do that, and let us discuss it like we've been discussing evolution.
OR, you could do #2
2) Ignore what I just said. Continue to tear away at evolution, all the time saying, "ID/Creationism is MUCH better" without ever ACTUALLY SAYING WHAT IT IS!!!
See, I understand why you don't - if you did state what your theory was, we could actually talk about it, and discuss it on its own merits, which, I have to assume, are few and not very meritorious, since you can't seem to bring yourself to state your theory.
So, I'm putting the screws to you right now:
============================================
== DUANE'S GRANDMOTHER OF ALL CHALLENGES ====
============================================
State, unambiguously the assumption(s) of ID theory, and allow us to discuss the reasonableness of them in open forum. Allow us to compare them in complexity and ennumeration to the assumptions required by current evolutionary theory.
OR
We'll all assume if no one can do that, that you're just being deceptive and shady and that your true agenda is NOT to improve humankind's understanding of the universe - but that it is to make us revert to the intellectual dark ages, where no one knew anything, and the "mystics" and "wizards" were in charge, to dictate "god's word" at a whim.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 