INTELLIGENT DESIGN ADVOCACY: I have some questions for Timothy Kershner, and ID Proponents of the like who continually trash talk the science industry. First, if you discredit any value that science has, or implementing the scientific method, then whats your point? It doesnt make any sense to self-contradict ones self to embrace the scientific validity of intelligent design on one hand, and then reject science on the other hand. If science itself is invalid, then so is intelligent design. Why attempt to reference design terminology for scientific credibility, and then in the same breath declare the scientific method to be inept? Its a self-refuting position to take. You demand, Please accept our intelligent design proposition to be a legitimate scientific theory, but do not accept any conclusion made by scientific research because the sum total output from the scientific community is essentially garbage. What possible benefit is there to this demand? It is inherently self-refuting. I dont have a problem with people who dislike science, or prioritize religions and popular ideological views. But, if that is the case, then why be an ID advocate? What frame of reference is there for an authority to appeal to if we cannot cite scientific literature? For example, if I am going to argue some law established in the U.S. Constitution, and rely upon that law as a protection for a U.S. citizen, it would be silly for me halfway through the debate to say, Well, the Constitution is outdated hogwash, and who needs it? Thats called a flip-flop. One moment I was relying upon the authority of a document, and then the next minute I discredit the documents validity. We cite from the science journal, BIO-Complexity. Each one of those papers cites to an extensive bibliography in the scientific literature. We cite to the 80-plus ENCODE Project science papers that were published in Nature, Science, Cell, and other prestigious science journals. Why would anyone turn right around and discredit the same authorities that they just cited to? If we are unwilling to accept the authority of the scientific literature, why bother discussing science? Upon what basis of jurisdiction is there to resolve a dispute of some issue regarding science if the industry standards are rejected, and scientific literature is unavailable to cite to for credibility? Please help me understand this because it appears to be an extremely glaring logic fallacy that has me mystified as to what could someone possibly be thinking to promote such obviously conflicting and contradictory viewpoints.
Posted on: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 06:32:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015