Nick Matzke- Dishonest or Stupid?
Nick Matzke seems to have found a niche- that is to misrepresent Intelligent Design no matter what reality demonstrates.
His whole confusion and apparent mission in life could have been avoided if Judge Jones III had allowed the publisher of the book "Of Pandas and People" to appear at the "Kitzmiller v Dover" trial of 2005.
But Judge Jones III felt it would be best if the people who knew the most about that book did not testify and instead relied solely on the raw spewage of the anti-IDists hired to testify.
Armed with only that Matzke has set out to try to "prove" something.
Of Pandas and People- the reality
The alleged definition of Intelligent Design that has Matzke running about is:
However IDists can and do accept universal common descent. Therefore you would figure something is amiss with that alleged definition.
Perhaps it is out of date.
Perhaps it is out of context.
What would have really helped is if the authors and publisher had been allowed to clarify any and all passages.
1) "Of Pandas and People" was central to the case
2) The judge refused to allow those most familiar to the book and its contents to be represented at the trial.
3) The judge did allow the plaintiff's lawyers to bluff their way through an argument about the immune system
4) Now all anti-IDists are riding the wave of that bluff as well as the absence of rebuttals to the false claims about "Of Pandas and People".
What makes all this so sad is the fact that anti-IDists could stop ID cold in its tracks just by scientifically supporting their anti-ID position.
The fact that they would rather prance around carrying nothing but ID misrepresentations really says more than I could about the utter vacuity of their position.
Perhaps Nick Matzke isn't stupid, but he is hoping that you are.
His whole confusion and apparent mission in life could have been avoided if Judge Jones III had allowed the publisher of the book "Of Pandas and People" to appear at the "Kitzmiller v Dover" trial of 2005.
But Judge Jones III felt it would be best if the people who knew the most about that book did not testify and instead relied solely on the raw spewage of the anti-IDists hired to testify.
Armed with only that Matzke has set out to try to "prove" something.
Of Pandas and People- the reality
The alleged definition of Intelligent Design that has Matzke running about is:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
However IDists can and do accept universal common descent. Therefore you would figure something is amiss with that alleged definition.
Perhaps it is out of date.
Perhaps it is out of context.
What would have really helped is if the authors and publisher had been allowed to clarify any and all passages.
1) "Of Pandas and People" was central to the case
2) The judge refused to allow those most familiar to the book and its contents to be represented at the trial.
3) The judge did allow the plaintiff's lawyers to bluff their way through an argument about the immune system
4) Now all anti-IDists are riding the wave of that bluff as well as the absence of rebuttals to the false claims about "Of Pandas and People".
What makes all this so sad is the fact that anti-IDists could stop ID cold in its tracks just by scientifically supporting their anti-ID position.
The fact that they would rather prance around carrying nothing but ID misrepresentations really says more than I could about the utter vacuity of their position.
Perhaps Nick Matzke isn't stupid, but he is hoping that you are.
posted by Joe G @ 1:17 PM
2 Comments:
At 8:58 AM,
James F. McGrath said…
The problem is that there are many young-earth creationists who use the new label 'intelligent design' for their same old position. The intelligent design vs. evolution board game is testimony to this, for example.
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/08/banana-and-peanut-butter-arguments-on.html
At 9:48 AM,
Joe G said…
The problem is that there are many young-earth creationists who use the new label 'intelligent design' for their same old position.
Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
If you do present it.
If you do not STFU.
The intelligent design vs. evolution board game is testimony to this, for example.
But ID isn't anti-evolution, so how can there be an ID vs evolution?
BTW I never heard of Kirk Cameron.
He certainly doesn't speak for ID.
And if that is all the "evidence" you have then I would say you don't have anything.
"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."- John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research
That is the YEC position on ID.
Post a Comment
<< Home