Posted: Dec 07, 2015 12:58 pm
THWOTH wrote:
When ID proponents suggest that it only looks as if evolution is a natural, unguided phenomenon while this or that datapoint could equally be explained by a wilful agent so powerful that we wouldn't necessary be able to conclude their existence from its handiwork, they are applying an unnecessary condition to their argument and falling to the fallacy of composition. I think we do ourselves a rational disservice sometimes by taking IDers entirely at their word as self-declared dispassionate enquirers, for if one says to them, "OK, so if ID is true what difference does it make to our understanding of the natural realm?" they invariably thank you for holding the door open for God and push him through. We have to remember that Creationism in all its forms starts with its conclusion, and the fallacy in that means Creationism refutes its own arguments from the off.
Exactly. Which is what I meant when I said that the similarities between all the various versions of ID/theistic evolution are obvious. All of them start with gawd and they need to find a way to insinuate him into their explanations of the universe. They are far from dispassionate enquirers; in fact this whole approach to intellectual enquiry is manifestly dishonest. There are numerous instances of scientists, in the absence of sufficient evidence, favouring one hypothesis over another, perhaps because it appeals at an intuitive or emotional level. However, once there is sufficient evidence, any reasonable scientist will ditch a hypothesis that fails to fit the evidence. Not so for our ID friends. That is why it should never, ever be taught in science class. It's not science - it's dogma dressed as science, no matter what fancy label it carries.