Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Cooper Demurs

Discovery Institute blogger Seth Cooper did not like Barry Lynn's op-ed as much as I did. His thoughts on the usbject are available here. Here's an excerpt:


The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State continues to serve in the Ministry of Dis-Information when it comes to intelligent design theory. A dogmatic opponent of intelligent design, the Rev. Lynn recently authored an op-ed that dismisses ID out of hand--not even bothering to take on any of the empirical, scientific claims made by Dr. Michael Behe or any other ID theorists.


Cooper does not offer a single example of Dis-Information from Lynn's op-ed. That's because Lynn, as always, was relentlessly accurate in what he wrote. As for not addressing the scientific arguments of ID, no doubt Lynn considered a brief op-ed the wrong forum for discussing the minutiae of blood clotting or immune system evolution.

Cooper does, however, link to another blogger for a more detailed treatment of Lynn's piece. It is a highly instructive blog entry indeed, for it shows the level of lunacy and dishonesty ID proponents are willing to embrace. We consider it in our next post.

10 Comments:

At 7:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You've got "Cooper" misspelled as "Copper" a few times there

 
At 7:44 PM, Blogger Jason said...

Thanks for pointing out my sloppy typing. The error has been correctd.

 
At 8:56 AM, Anonymous Don T. Know said...

"...the Rev. Lynn recently authored an op-ed that dismisses ID out of hand--not even bothering to take on any of the empirical, scientific claims made by Dr. Michael Behe or any other ID theorists."There are no "scientific claims" of ID ... not unless you are willing to redefine the scientific method, which is necessarily rooted in methodological materialism.

Those who would like to expand the domain of science to include super-naturalism fail to provide a means for how we can go about verifying/falsifying "theories" which appeal to super-natural "mechanisms" to "explain" what human beings are able to observe.

For example, is it legitimate to appeal to alien life forms as an explanatory mechanism? And, even if we were somehow how able to pursue a line of inquiry into alien causation, what are the practical applications of such knowledge?

These are just a few of the questions that arise from IDism. And, from what I can tell, they haven't come close to answering any of them. Instead, they've apparently decided to devote all their energy to writing press releases.

 
At 11:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don T. Know asks:

what are the practical applications of such knowledge?


what about simply the pursuit of *truth*?
If I find a body bound, gagged and shot in the back, I don't conclude it's an accident, even if I *never find a suspect*. Even if it was a suicide and the victim managed to make it look like homocide, common sense dictates, absent some extroardinarily compelling evidence to the contrary, that there was, nonetheless intent and design involved. The ID people seem to be saying that this compelling evidence to the contrary is absent.

 
At 11:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

"The ID people seem to be saying that this compelling evidence to the contrary is absent. "



But it's practically *only* the ID folks that say that extroardinarily compelling evidence is lacking. It's just the ID folks, and 87% of the American public.

 
At 2:42 PM, Anonymous Don T. Know said...

>> what are the practical applications of such knowledge?

> what about simply the pursuit of *truth*?
Throwing up our hands and saying "it was designed by an intelligent X" is not going to help us find a cure for a disease ... advance technology ... or otherwise give us additional useful (read: practical) knowledge.

By the way, can an intelligent X produce something that doesn't appear to be the product of intelligence?

 
At 12:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Throwing up our hands and saying "it was designed by an intelligent X" is not going to help us find a cure for a disease ... advance technology ... or otherwise give us additional useful (read: practical) knowledge."


right, so, when the person is found with the shot in his back, we shouldn't "throw up our hands".
we should say, well, I'm going to figure out how the rope and gun evolved, and the rope taught itself to tie the guy up, just in case this leads to some valuable product or cure for disease.
and, the gun also disolved afterward, or has legs and walked away. If the reality is it didn't happen, why should I suspect I'd have to get some "product" out of the process? Maybe I might learn something about my own limitations. But, what value is *that* in a consumer society?


"By the way, can an intelligent X produce something that doesn't appear to be the product of intelligence?"


Judging from much of the content on TV, I'd say yeah.

 
At 1:41 PM, Blogger JimVijay said...

In reaction to the 4th anonymous comment, everytime I think no more stupid a statement could be made by a creationist, someone like this idiot tunnels down to greater depths. In his/her favor, s/he has the good sense to remain anonymous.

 
At 10:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"someone like this idiot"

ad hominems are cogent responses;

 
At 11:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"someone like this idiot "

I suppose this is the same response a kid in school will get when he asks the teacher to explain evolution.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home