-Prometheus- wrote:He makes an interesting argument in it.
no... he doesn't... he makes an interesting humorous stab at an argument while at the same time stating quite clearly his argument is so much swiss cheese he'd have trouble getting it to hold air, let alone logic...
The first methodological consideration has to do with the use of the term “science” and the logic of truth claims within the sciences. There is no single definition of the term “science” that can be adequate for all uses of it by all so-called “scientists” at all times and in all places.
[BabelFish]I'm getting ready to redefine the meaning of the word 'science' to support my argument[/BabelFish]
I will select what I consider to be logically the best and politically the most influential views.
[BabelFish]I will be cherry picking those facts or arguments which support mine and pretending the rest doesn't matter[/BabelFish]
In this paper I will focus on the presentation of intelligent design by Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box2. His argument rests on certain scientific claims he makes. I will accept them at face value, i.e., I assume that the presented generalizations are stated correctly and are based on accepted methods of research in biology. (I, trained in philosophy, cannot in this respect function as a judge.)
[BabelFish]I'm going to be blabbing about something about which I have no knowledge, but that's not going to stop me putting my oar in because it's how hippies like myself make our living[/BabelFish]
A recent PhD. Dissertation written by my student Michael Valle (completed in 2004) presents a rigorous and thorough logical analysis of this new kind of philosophical design argument that is based on post-Holocaust invocations of a principle called “the hiddeness of God.”
[BabelFish]I'm such a great teacher, even my students are accomplished producers of wishful thinking![/BabelFish]
this is precisely the sort of run-of-the-mill twaddle we've been exposed to countless times before and quite in keeping with the creationists grasp of the scientific method - ie, laughably tenuous.
for your personal edification, the scientific method is:
- 1) Observation - You spot a pattern
2) You develop a hypothesis which describes the pattern
3) You use the hypothesis to make a prediction about the pattern
4) You test the prediction
5) You evaluate the results of the test in a structured manner, describing methodologies, controls and sources.
6) You confirm or disprove the hypothesis
this process is iterative and ongoing. new observations or failed hypothesis tell us as much as successful results. the peer review process you so casually poo-poo is an integral part of this.
now let's check the ID/creationist "scientific" method:
- 1) There is a God
2) His word is law
3) Everything happens because of magic
4) You will accept there is a God or you will spend all eternity having your private parts pricked by smelly demons!
hmmmm how do we overcome this disparity? i know, let's bleat and clamour as much as possible and as publicly as possible about how the two methods are identical!
right...
creationism is bunk. there is no magical sky fairy. organised religion is a farce. big surprise.
we could go on and talk about group psychosis and how religion is designed to exploit socially bent brains to get us to play along, but that strikes me as being somewhat beyond this discussion and probably a foreign country for most.
(too much?) 
i have none: appendix, tonsils and wisdom teeth
