Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, March 12, 2007

Nick Matzke: How to erect a strawman

Over on Telic Thougts Mike Gene has started a blog titled Matzke and Davis on Creationism and ID. Nick is sticking by the bogus ID = Creationism meme even in the face of reasoned refutations of that premise.

Then Nick finally plays his cards:

But of course what the fight is actually about is the idea of miraculous intervention in the history of biology. This is what the ID movement was and is set up to promote and defend. This is creationism, whether old-earth or young-earth. This is what the courts ruled an unconstitutional religious view in scientific classrooms, and thus this is why the creationists came up with the "intelligent design" smokescreen to attempt to dodge the constitutional problems that creationism would inevitably have.

First the ID movement was NOT set up to promote and defend "the idea of miraculous intervention in the history of biology". Nick cannot substantiate that claim.

What ID does say is that if there was some intervention, then so be it. That is if science is interested in reality.

And in the end there should never be any constitutional issues with teaching reality.

But speaking of smokescreens, that appears to be all that Nick can muster. After all it is well known that ID AND Creation would go away if Nick could just find some way to scientifically substantiate his anti-ID and anti-Creation position.

Why is it that weak-minded fools think they can erect a strawman and really think it is indicative of reality?


  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger Monado said…

    You mean leaving aside the fact, demonstrated in court, that the text of "Of Pandas and People" was run through a word-processor with Search & Replace to change "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design" and "Creator" to "designer"? It seems to me that you're the one making unsupported assertions.

  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is really telling that the court did not allow the publisher of "Of Pandas and People" testify. The one author (Behe) that did testify says the following:

    Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal Cell: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?"

    It is also very telling that the only people who conflate ID and Creation are the same people who know the least about either.

    ID has come a long way since "Of Pandas and People". And truthfully that book never meant much, if anything, to most IDists. That Nick, the NCSE and the ACLU had to reach back for unpublished drafts of an irrelevant book, and that the obviously ID ignorant Dover school board would choose such an outdated text, should raise red flags to any objective observer.

    That Nick, the NCSE and the ACLU cling to that misguided strategy is laughable. And it makes me want my "day in court" over this issue.

    So stay tuned...


Post a Comment

<< Home