Thursday, July 31, 2008

Give them a finch and they'll take an isle.

This comment is simply about showing how smart I am. You may simply ignore it.

I'm defending against reasons why intelligent design qua Paley is not completely unscientific.

- By definition, the unprovable and unfalsifiable (the creator) is a direct contradiction of both the scientific method and the concept of science as a whole.

Science doesn't disprove gods or unspecified designers. It tests those concepts and they don't seem to pan out. My wisdom teeth are a horrifically bad design therefore there is no intelligent design. Panda's thumbs are simply cooped wrist bones and that's not the way any real designer would work. My eye has all the wiring backwards making for a large set of problems which any two year old would have designed differently. It isn't that it's untestable, rather it's just wrong.

- It is not the product of the scientific method, any testing, a provable hypothesis or an outcome of any debate, it was and is an essentially forced idea not open for discussion.

Seeing as the debate and arguments and hypotheses were common for for hundreds of years, this seems a remarkably narrow-sided comment. Read Paley's Natural Theology it was required reading at Cambridge for years (including those when Darwin attended) and is nothing but argument and debate on the subject. In fact, it was the failures of the predictions Darwin made by the light of Paley that puzzled him the most. Why should identical islands have different species, why should the differences of those species be progressive from the distance from the mainland?

- To call it a product of science is to put it on par with the great works of scientific literature such as The Origin of Species, which is both ludicrous and insulting.

One of the reasons I despise the modern creationist movement is because it demands such over-reactions. Give them a finch and they'll take a isle.

That was fricking clever as hell on my part. I swear we needs to go viral or something when talking about creationist.

Update: Ouch I used the word "their" rather than "they'll". Frick, best thing I've said in weeks and I flub it. (See linked debate, I covered my tracks here.

No comments: