Jan 162006
 

Carelessly, Douglas Altshuler declared:

Doug Alt

“Proponents of intelligent design … have long criticized science for not being able to explain … how bees fly

Now Stephen E. Jones has taken a stand for ID to make Altshuler to document his claim or to retract himself.

Krauze and Patrick are following the developments of this story, so do we.

What about mass journals distorting the facts?

What about the unfounded statement of Dr. Francis S. Collins, quoted by Newsweek (previous link) when he carelessly declared:

“[ID] says, if there’s some part of science that you can’t understand, that must be where God is.”

Or what about the careless statement of Dr. Dennis Alexander when he wrote:

“ID proponents commonly use ‘naturalistic’ as a synonym for ‘scientific’ ”

Here, Altshuler, Collins and Alexander are siding with the ID-opposition by putting words never said by real “proponents of ID.”

None of these Doctors can document their careless words against an ID-guided research program!

So, is Altshuler single-handedly “poisoning the well” or not?

(Last quoted words written by Mats in Dr. Dembski’s Blog.)

 Posted by at 8:32 am

  13 Responses to “Douglas Altshuler needs to document his claims or to issue a public retraction!”

  1. Here, Altshuler, Collins and Alexander are siding with the ID-opposition by putting words never said by real “proponents of ID.”

    Well, there’s nothing new in that. Even a cursory review of postings over at PT, for example, will reveal many examples of poisoning the well, straw man arguments and red herrings. The anti-ID crowd claims the intellectual high ground by appealing to science and scientific reasoning, but quickley abandon both when their own bad reasoning and logic is exposed. I predict that Altshuler will never admit error, but, like almost every other ID critic out there, (I say almost because there are a few intellectually honest ID critics) he will find a way to self-justify his claim rather than admit error, or worse, concede a point to an IDP (or, God forbid, a creationist)!!

  2. Instead ID proponents commonly use ‘naturalistic’ as a
    synonym for ‘scientific’ ” Sadly Dr. Alexander does not give a single specific example of this terminology confusion. This makes contradicting him difficult and this is a pity as it is a crucially important point.

    If that is what Dr. Alexander said then he must suffer from intellectual dyslexia. With all due respect to Andrew Rowell, I’ve been pointing this out for some time now with quotes from Darwinians. It is not ID proponents who equates naturalistic with science. It is the Darwinians who makes these two terms synonymous.

    Ken Miller:
    ” The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it’s a matter of personal belief.”

    Barbara Forrest:
    “To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible”

    It is evident that most ID opponents have no understanding of ID at all. They have consistently demonstrated their ignorance by misstating what ID posits. It may be just a knee jerk reaction to their perceived attack on their religion of Atheism.

    Steve Weinberg who’s a physicist and notably anti-religious have said “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes it possible to not believe in God”

    There is also the Christian sycophant factor, where some professed Christians would kowtow to the predominant Darwinian myth, for the sake of acceptance by the atheistic oligarchy.

  3. DonaldM,

    Related to those “many examples of poisoning the well, straw man arguments and red herrings”, that you mention, I fully agree that by an intense Blog use, we can consistently expose the current evolutionist’s “own bad reasoning and logic” so that the population may freely compare and freely decide by themselves, not by a dogmatic imposition.

    Freedom should be the free market of ideas within Science.

    Teleologist,

    Thanks for the quotations. It is extremely sad that

    “some professed Christians would kowtow to the predominant Darwinian myth, for the sake of acceptance by the atheistic oligarchy”

    But again, it is the freedom of choice. The problem is when even those ones doing the kowtowing, as DonaldM have declared, distort the evidence or outwardly lie in order to keep their prestigious positions… (that’s dishonesty at work… a marked lie to “buy and sell“…)

  4. It is evident that most ID opponents have no understanding of ID at all. They have consistently demonstrated their ignorance by misstating what ID posits. It may be just a knee jerk reaction to their perceived attack on their religion of Atheism.

    As far as many of the posters on internet blogs go, I’m willing t bet that most anti-ID posters haven’t read hardly any of the actual ID literature. Rather, they rely on reviews of these books and articles by other anti-ID reveiwers. Yet, these same people have not the slightest hesitation in accusing IDPs (and/or those who question evolution or Darwinism), of not taking the time to read the evolutionary literature. This is why, it seems to me, that we so often see misreprentations of what ID actually says. It’s because they haven’t actually read it for themselves.

    Most telling is the responses from those of the anti-ID rowd who have read and studied the ID literature. They nit-pick away at any seeming error or typo while missing the point entirely. And never, never do they even concede that a valid point or issue was raised. Never. The unwritten rule is “never concede a point or grant a point to an IDP or, worse, a Creationist.” Thus, whenever there is disagreement it is always the IDP who doesn’t understand, or misunderstands or is ignorant…never the ID critic. They never ever are in error!!

    It’s not that they have no understanding of ID (which most do not), but that they don’t want to understand ID.

  5. Yah, sure, you betcha — harping about silly stuff certainly beats going into a laboratory and trying to find real evidence that supports ID.

    Next you can complain that IDists didn’t really say the world is flat, and then you can say that IDists didn’t really say Shakespeare didn’t write all those plays, and then you can say IDists had nothing to do with the disappearance of Judge Crater.

    Of course, none of that advances intelligent design as science — but your goal is to avoid making such advances, right?

  6. edarrell, as always, your post is just example of all things said above. Please continue.

  7. edarrall, did we touch a nerve again? Got your Darwinian hands caught in the cookie jar again? Instead of going on a blustering misrepresentation of ID, why don’t you help your Darwinian brother come up with documentation to support his claim? Or you can try not being a hypocrite by denouncing his false unsubstantiated accusation. Then again, like a typical Darwinists you are not really interested in the truth are you?

  8. edarrall writes:

    Yah, sure, you betcha– harping about silly stuff certainly beats going into a laboratory and trying to find real evidence that supports ID.

    We have found real evidence that supports ID. Perhaps you’ve heard of irreducible complexity and specified complexity, to name a couple. You seem to be suggesting that no one has found any evidence for ID. Or, perhaps you mean to suggest that no one has yet found any evidence that you take to be evidence for ID, which is a very different thing.
    In either case, it might be instructive to hear what you would consider to be valid evidence for ID, since nothing presented to date suits you.

  9. DonaldM, no positive evidence for ID will be accepted and no research results in favour of ID either. Why? Because anything, but anything can be incorporated into General Theory of Evolution. Unfortunately, all that is served to us as science.

  10. Edwin S. Darrell,

    Can you document any of your claims? No?

    You wrote,

    Next you can complain that IDists didn’t really say the world is flat, and then you can say that IDists didn’t really say Shakespeare didn’t write all those plays, and then you can say IDists had nothing to do with the disappearance of Judge Crater

    For a lawyer, that’s a complete shame!

    I am glad that In_Unison and many others already know your trends, as In_Unison wrote you:

    edarrell, as always, your post is just example of all things said above. Please continue.

    DonaldM just wrote:

    Even a cursory review of postings over at PT, for example, will reveal many examples of poisoning the well, straw man arguments and red herrings.

    And there you are, just confirming his statements.

    Are you going to document your statement? No? Well, as usual, you can not document anything you post, so you are just running after posting …

    Thanks for confirming the point that we are making here with your statements!

  11. DonaldM, regarding required evidence for ID, you may want to read this article by Mike Gene:

    http://www.idthink.net/back/evid/index.html

  12. DonaldM, regarding required evidence for ID, you may want to read this article by Mike Gene:

    http://www.idthink.net/back/evid/index.html

    Yes, I’ve read this before. I like Mike Gene’s differentiation between EE and OE…very helpful, I think. And very applicable when it comes to debates about ID and evolution. The anti-ID crowd are always demanding a level of ‘evidence’ that no reasonable person would expect to be the case, even if ID were true.

    There’s another way to consider the evidence question. Evidence in the scienctific sense means data or phenomenon that we observe in nature. Now, unfortunately for us, this data does not appear to us with a little label attached telling us what it is to be taken as evidence for. Rather, the observer (in this case, the scientist) assigns evidentiary status based on other considerations: beliefs she might have about the world, other bits of data that she assumes or knows to be true about the world, gut feeling, other background knowledge and considerations relevant to the investigation at hand, and so forth.

    So, the question of evidence is really a question about evidence at all, but a question of what evidentiary status a given observer is willing to assign to a particular observation based on a host of other considerations, many of which are philosophical and not scientific in nature. To use an extreme example, thus an atheist like Dawkins would never take any observation to be evidence for actual design, because his atheism will not allow such an evidentiary assignment to any data, and not because the data itself in some way contradicts the possibility of ID. Let’s face it, there’s nothing about the baterial flagellum that screams: “not designed, not designed”…if anything, taken by itself, it seems to scream the opposite.

    And so, two scientists, Behe and Miller let us say, look at a flagellum and one says it bears all the hallmarks of design, and the other says it may look as if it were designed, but we know it wasn’t and is proof of the power of evolution. In both cases, the flagellum is still what it is and goes merrily along propelling e-coli through fluid. In other words, the data is just the data.
    Data as evidence for or against a particular hypothesis is something else altogether.

  13. The irony was noticed by MSNBC when it subtitled such story as “Robotic wings mimic insects’ rapid beat and could inspire new designs“. So, the irony then is that studies by people like Altshuler, no matter how they may “rationalize” them, are CONFIRMING an Intelligent Design,

    Intelligent Design Discovered in Flies and in the Bees Flying Code.

    So, there we are, learning how to use the wonderful designs present in nature for our own robotics and medical study. We, a smaller engineer learning from the biggest engineer!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.