tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9265258.post112811128253988514..comments2024-03-24T02:20:57.798-07:00Comments on jennifer's uncreatively-titled weblog.: Funny DesignJenniferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01947039846875003496noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9265258.post-1128243478380185442005-10-02T01:57:00.000-07:002005-10-02T01:57:00.000-07:00Hey Travis! Thanks for responding :-)There are ve...Hey Travis! Thanks for responding :-)<BR/><BR/>There are very good scientific arguments to oppose ID, and you're right that this isn't one of them. This is more of a logical argument.<BR/><BR/>The main thrust of ID says, "ok, sure, we acknowledge that the scientific record proves that evolution occured. But we can't explain exactly what happened [here] so God/A Designer must have done it."<BR/><BR/>For instance, as Lithwick points out, there are a lot of things that science cannot currently explain. There were a lot of things that science couldn't explain ten years ago but can now.<BR/><BR/>Essentially, ID is an "argument from ignorance" or an "argumentum ad ignorantiam," which is not to say that ID adherents are ignorant, but that they are committing a logical fallacy wherein people claim that because we can't explain so-and-so, it can't be true. <I>"I find it hard to imagine a way in which a thousand-ton piece of metal could fly through the air. Therefore, airplanes will never work." </I><BR/><BR/>That's simply poor science and poorer logic. If we want to believe that God created the universe, to me, it makes more sense not to have this "God of the gaps" approach but to look to science. It reminds me of that quote from Galileo: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." <BR/><BR/>I hope I made her point somewhat clearer. <BR/><BR/>Also, I might add that when people call ID a "theory," that is technically wrong. It's not empirically testable, it can't be falsified, and it has no predictive power.Jenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01947039846875003496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9265258.post-1128225338732469262005-10-01T20:55:00.000-07:002005-10-01T20:55:00.000-07:00Ok, after scrolling back up the page I realize you...Ok, after scrolling back up the page I realize you had said that these weren't deep philosophical treatises, so realizing that it wasn't meant to be a true criticism of Intelligent Design, I'll just stick to the original question, what good point does that article make?<BR/><BR/>TravisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9265258.post-1128225190492880022005-10-01T20:53:00.000-07:002005-10-01T20:53:00.000-07:00What good point did you get out of Lithwick's arti...What good point did you get out of Lithwick's article? There is some well thought out, informed criticism of Intelligent Design and this article seemed to miss on both points. <BR/><BR/>TravisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com