Denialism.com

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

IDers just don't know how to think.

This is what denialism.com is all about, the fact that someone like Denyse O'Leary thinks they know how to think, when they really don't. Check out this essay on why ID should be considered by scientists.

When people examine a new idea for the first time, they often approach it from a basis of older, assumed ideas which cause confusion. They can't really evaluate the new idea properly until the source of confusion has been identified.

In discussing the intelligent design controversy with people, I sometimes hear the following comment:
If scientists conclude that something is designed, then they are just taking the easy way out, and they won’t be able to find out anything more about it.

Ok we're starting with a straw man here. Design doesn't make things easier it complicates things with questions like, "who designed the designer?", and "how does this help us make predictions about the natural world?" If God did it, and he's a mysterious guy, that gives us no insight into biology, because who knows why a deity does anything? He's always been so fickle in the past. I guess in a way it's "easy" because it allows you to stop thinking about science, but it certainly doesn't make science any easier. Onward and downward:

On rare occasions, time is permitted for a thoughtful response, so here's one:

Let us look at a real life example: Suppose we say: If the fire marshall's office (FMO) concludes that a fatal fire has been set deliberately, then they are just taking the easy way out, and they won't be able to find out anything more about it.

Wow! An analogy! How about that. Instant dismissal. Give me data or give me death. Anyway, she goes on with this analogy, and on, and on. Finally she's done, and what's next? Another analogy!

Should scientists refuse to consider design a possibility because they are “objective”? Well, how about this: Suppose the FMO gets a call from a leading local politician announcing that he wants the arson investigation called off because the FMO has no business assuming that someone might have wanted that building torched?

If the FMO thinks it has reasonable grounds for pursuing its present line of inquiries, should it meekly accept that argument? Should we assume that the politician obstructing the investigation is “objective”? Or rather that he is trying to defend somebody or something? In the same way, materialists attempting to suppress ID-friendly scientists are hardly “objective” in the matter.

The reason the outburst above is confused is that the speaker assumes that design is not a conclusion that can be arrived at by considering evidence and moving on to identify patterns. Underlying that assumption is a lifetime of steady indoctrination by materialism.

Suppose I took a fish and skinned it, then danced in a circle and sang a song about a daisy, it's still not data, so go away. I guess in a way it is that dastardly materialism they so frequently complain about that causes me to believe in evolutionary theory. But the material in question is data. This materialism canard is just another way of saying conspiracy anyway (Scientists won't listen to those wise IDists because they're just too interested in spreading atheistic/materialistic ideology). Therefore I give Denyse a score of 2/5 for denialism for this argument (one point for analogies and logical fallacies, one point for conspiracy). Not a stunning piece of denialism, but it's getting there.

Labels: Denyse O'Leary, Evolution denialism

4 Comments:

Anonymous said...

talk abou at a strawman, 'who designed the designer?'. This is just a cop-out to give you an excuse not to think. You don't have to know anything about a designer to know something's been designed. The chair you're sitting on didn't just pop into existence, yet you don't know a thing about the designer... guess it must have evolved from a footstool, all by itself in a pond of slime and wood chips... any thing else would be unscientific.

March 28, 2007 10:33 PM,

Mark said...

Ahhh, the denialism, it hurts my brain!

That's the stupidest argument I've heard yet, and truly worthy of a denialist. I salute you sir.

I can't believe the ID people believe their own bullshit.

March 29, 2007 8:49 AM,

Boo said...

If the FMO thinks it has reasonable grounds for pursuing its present line of inquiries, should it meekly accept that argument? Should we assume that the politician obstructing the investigation is â€œobjectiveâ€? Or rather that he is trying to defend somebody or something? In the same way, materialists attempting to suppress ID-friendly scientists are hardly â€œobjectiveâ€ in the matter.

So wait... did she just claim that evolutionary biologists are the Intelligent Designers or are acting on behalf of the Intelligent Designer?!

March 29, 2007 1:32 PM,

Mark said...

I make a policy of not even dissecting bad analogies. Analogies are only useful as a teaching tool to help understand concepts, they are not useful arguments in and of themselves.

March 30, 2007 12:54 PM,

Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>: <$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home