Not the Exclusive Domain
David Friedman, in his new blog, demonstrates how Intelligent Design and much of environmentalism are two sides of the exact same faith-based coin.
The real objection is that its supporters are driven by religious, not
scientific, motives. Somewhere in the world there must exist someone
who was persuaded of its truth by scientific arguments—but looking at
those arguments makes it clear that they were generated by people who
knew what conclusion they wanted and were doing their best to fudge up
reasons to believe it.
Join Over 5,000 Subscribers!
Get exclusive content sent directly to your inbox.
9 Comments
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Intelligent "intelligent design" merely posits that the Darwinian theory of biogenesis is non-falsifiable, and asks whether the amount of time that has elapsed since life emerged is sufficient for truly random processes to have brought life about. In the absence of random causes, purposeful agents must be sought.
Much depends on one's judgment of plausibility, and whether a billion years is a long time or a short one in terms of molecular evolution.
Unmittigated nonsense.
First of all, falsifiability is much missunderstood. It applies ONLY to scientific propositions and not to ANYTHING else, EVER.
Second, whether something is or is not falsifiable has nothing whatever to do with whether it's true or false. If something is not falsifiable, that only means that you cannot study it with conventional scientific methods of observation and experiment. That's ALL! It says nothing whatever about validity as concerns reality.
Darwin's theories are falsifiable, and that's simply a fact. ID's hypothesis is also falsifiable, which is its downfall. It has already been falsified a billion times and only complete idiots and morons don't understand that.
The ofundamental problem with ID is that it postulates a supernatural agent, a supernatural God. Both Darwinian evolution and a hypothetical naturalistic ID (aliens and the like) leave a lot of unanswered questions, and many implausibilities that when further explored could lead to a contradiction – or to a refinement of the theory. Potentially leading to a contradiction is all that "falsifiable" means. Implausible is not impossible, and any observation that such and such is very unlikely statistically is not the same as reaching a contradiction, it is a clue that reveals an area in which to look for contradictions.
Contradictions are only possible in an absolute reality – contradictions don't exist, and the term has no meaning whatsoever, outside of or "beyond" reality. Supernatural, or "super-reality" ID cannot possibly lead to a contradiction.
If we presented the ID proponents with a naturalistic ID theory, no matter how far-fetched, they would utterly reject it as inconsistent with their theory. A supernatural designer is the entirety of their theory, and their attempts to smuggle that into classrooms under the guise of naturalistic science is not only completely transparent, but also completely dishonest.
Elaine:
Why anger? It's simple. Too little time. I will be long dead and buried before those who come later finally realize the human potential that I already know exists.
They will stop moronically trusting in God, State, or both, and will set themselves free, forever. They will be prosperous, they will cure all diseases, and they will live for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
We could have started on this path 3,000 years ago, but instead decided to be a bunch of stupid fucking morons who believe that fairy tales will save us.
Anger? You fuckin' bet your ass.
"If your truth is real it should have a calming influence on you… I have my own personal view on the world and am at peace with it. Are you?"
I can't speak for Richard, whom I presume your comments are intended for, but my answers are "it does", and "yes".
"Now everything has to be verified and quantified and seen with his own eyes (which is ridiculous in itself as our eyes and senses only pick up a tiny percentage of what is known to exist in science)."
You're half right, and he's half right. Simple observation is not enough. Observation combined with non-contradictory identification reveals more than can be seen directly with the eyes, yet does not require faith.
"If you come across a group believing the world is flat, do you contort your face in rage and call them imbeciles, or do you let them be, content in your own mind that their are weird people everywhere."
Often, neither. So long as I have the time and inclination, and see some potential benefit from it, I engage them peaceably. Of course, those same people won't always let me be, or limit their engagement to peaceable means, and that can sometimes lead to rage on my part. But it's the non-peaceable not leaving me be that does it, not the belief.
So, though you are apparently squarely on the religious path and free from the "hands of science", do you intend to let others be, or limit your engagement to peaceable means, or will you be trying to make others teach your beliefs in schools that they are forced to pay for and that their children are forced to attend?
"…non-falsifiable…"
One of the most notable frustrations of life in the past fifteen yars or so has been located in not being able to express explosive derisive laughter in the written word.
It astounds: how many apparently sensible people cannot see directly through that horseshit at a single glance. The absurdity is right there in front of them in plain English. And still: they write it with perfect credulity. All the time.
Popper was a fool. And he is attended by every sort of fucking moron.
Billy:
Could you elaborate, just a bit?
I'm assuming that you mean that the proper way to express the underlying notion is that a scientific propositions must be testable, i.e., must actually involve what science is all about, which makes "falsifiability" completely superfluous, not to metion that it's a silly way to describe a proposition that turns out to be true.
Is this what you mean?
How would you evaluate this?
I've come across your blog through BE and keep wanting to post a comment, but I don't want to offend. So here goes, and no offense intended. You remind me of my father who was brought up a Scottish Presbyterian and, hardly surprizing, turned way off the religious path and into the hands of science. Now everything has to be verified and quantified and seen with his own eyes (which is ridiculous in itself as our eyes and senses only pick up a tiny percentage of what is known to exist in science). The only reason I bother to comment is, like him, you vent a lot of anger. Who are you angry at? If the truth is really so plain to see then surely you should be calm, not angry? Yet your passion is almost religious in quality, fanatical even. If your truth is real it should have a calming influence on you.
If you come across a group believing the world is flat, do you contort your face in rage and call them imbeciles, or do you let them be, content in your own mind that their are weird people everywhere. Maybe you do become enraged, I don't know – but it seems pretty silly to me to think you can enrage the world into conformity – abit Spanish Inquisition, no?
I have my own personal view on the world and am at peace with it. Are you?
"Who are you angry at?" is as smarmy as Dr. Laura's "Oh, that's so sad. What happened to you to make you not believe?" If one's personal view is based on evidence rather than belief, it's quite easy to "be at peace"! (And we don't buffalo ourselves into counting on something *out there* to give meaning to our own lives.)
/rant at people who just don't get it