Posted by John Lynch on May 22, 2006 Henry Rollins on ID:
The breathtaking stupidity of irreducible complexity is only outweighed by the complete lack of science involved. it is just intellectually lazy and cannot be tested or challenged. You can’t get God to come down to the lab and prove a fucking thing. You just have to believe, and science does not operate on faith.
MP3 [2.7M, 2:42] here. Props to PvM.
I am registered with TypeKey, I was signed in. But because Movable Type is an unstable, unreliable piece of shit my comment was lost.
GET BETTER BLOGGING SOFTWARE, OR SHUT THE BLOGS DOWN.
mythusmage must be feeding off the high powered anger fueled music of mr Rollins.
My War anyone?
BDC, he just needs a “six pack”
If only the ID camp would Rise Above current YEC stammerings and Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie some evidence they would be taken with more than a grain of salt. If not, then they should get ready for a Life of Pain.
What I See is a blatant disregard for honest communication and scietific inquiry. ID is Damaged goods, pure and simple.
*Rodney turns off iTunes and puts Damaged in the tape deck…*
Sorry, John, that was too much fun.
Well, there’s at least 500 folks with significantly more street cred on this topic than Rollins who would disagree with him.
If you start with the strawman that ID is the same as YEC, you are probably not being intellectually honest. I use the definition of ID that can be found at the following web-site: http://www.discover.org/csc.
Evidence of design is everywhere, and ID hypothesizes that science can infer design based upon the specific aspects of “systems” that are being studied. ID does not attempt to refute evolution, per se, but it does question the power of known evolutionary mechanisms to create information rich structures such as DNA, flagella, etc. There are no credible scientific explanations for the origin of these structures, only “just-so” stories. The stories are fine as a starting point, but as of today, science has no explanation. So, IMHO, design is the alternative hypothesis, and best supported by the evidence we have today for certain aspects of nature.
Any study of evolutionary biology that does not acknowledge the possibility of design and the possibility that naturalistic explanations may be a dead end constitutes censorship, or at least idea discrimination.
There are far better examples of ID criticism than this Rollins rant. I’m dissapointed that you choose to highlight this rather than a more respectful critique.
Ohhhh look! An intelligently designed troll that spouts DI talking points.
Its even worse than I thought. You are an embarassment to ASU.
Sorry, but that was my gut reaction. You don’t know me, other than that I am sympathetic to ID and took issue with your post of an anti ID rant. Is this how you lead your classes? I sure hope not. I know a few kids that will be freshman at ASU this fall in the honors college and I had higher hopes that the faculty would be more professional than this. Its like you are a junior PZ Myers. Ughhh.
You can’t engage me directly on my assertions so you attack me. Ad-hominems are an indicator of a weak position, so a neutral observer would conclude that you can’t answer the points I raised.
DaveW, you didn’t even use a Black Flag song title in your posts. tsk tsk. On to your rant.
” ID does not attempt to refute evolution, per se, but it does question the power of known evolutionary mechanisms to create information rich structures such as DNA, flagella, etc. There are no credible scientific explanations for the origin of these structures, only “just-so” stories.”
And what, DaveW, is ID’s theory on the origin of these structures?
Please, come over to IIDB’s evolution forum: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=66
We’d love to have a chat with you and discuss your theory. I promise you will think it’s more credible than Henry’s, although you would be hard pressed to find error in Henry’s rant. But please, don’t come here and be rude to the host, that’s so typical. Just post here if you would like for me to start a discussion thread for you…
DaveW,
There is no evidence of design. None. Just because evolutionary biologists haven’t figured out how certain structures evolved doesn’t mean they won’t someday.
I think Intelligent Design is tempting to some people because it gives answers. Others (like myself) prefer to wait for evidence.
“Any study of evolutionary biology that does not acknowledge the possibility of design and the possibility that naturalistic explanations may be a dead end constitutes censorship, or at least idea discrimination.”
This is just flat out wrong. It does not consitute censorship because ID is not science. It isn’t testable and it isn’t provable and it probably never will be.
There is no possibility whatsoever that naturalistic explanations will turn out to be a dead end, even if our current explanations turn out to be a load of marsh gas. There is no such thing as the supernatural, by definition. Even in God does exist, then his existence is natural.
May 22, 2006
May 22, 2006
May 22, 2006