Comments on: Is Intelligent Design Falsifiable?

By: bipolar2

bipolar2 — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:45:55 +0000

** self-respecting apes laugh at ID **

The falsity of ‘intelligent design’ is proved by the existence of those who believe in it.

bipolar2

By: NeuroLogica Blog » Design, Evolution, and more Semantic Nonsense from ID Proponent, Michael Egnor

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:00:50 +0000

[...] response to my post in which I pointed out that the question is not whether there is design in nature but whether or [...]

By: reasonTreason » Egnor…it’s too easy to make fun of this guy.

reasonTreason » Egnor…it’s too easy to make fun of this guy. — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:56:47 +0000

[...] Michael Egnor, neurosurgeon and Discovery Institute Fellow, posted a critique of Dr. Stephen Novella’s recent post on his blog, neuroLogica. Dr. Novella is a neurologist, Skeptic and host of the popular [...]

By: NeuroLogica Blog » Intelligent Design Is Not Science

NeuroLogica Blog » Intelligent Design Is Not Science — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:19:05 +0000

[...] response to my blog post about Intelligent Design (ID), Jason Rosenhouse, who writes the excellent Evolution Blog, wrote an entry taking exception to [...]

By: weing

weing — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:53:32 +0000

What a steaming pile of horse manure that rebuttal is. The question is not whether intelligent design is true or false. The question is whether intelligent design is science. It clearly is not.

By: John Pieret

John Pieret — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:31:18 +0000

Dr. Egnor has posted a “rebuttal”:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/is_intelligent_design_falsifia.html

By: Roy Niles

Roy Niles — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:13:55 +0000

It appears badrabbi has given up the fight here and moved on to another topic, psychics, where he seems to be siding with pec – again. These two guys are like the old Timex watches – they take a licking but just keep on ticking.

Finding that one ID proponent was unable to advance their case does little to defeat their cause, unfortunately. But engaging in this exercise brings home to me that the quality their proposals lack most is plausibility.

At some point there should have to be a plausibility assessment before moving forward with a possibility assessment.

And you can’t really postulate a believable creator without positing the minimal amount of qualities and abilities such a creator would need to cobble up the simplest form of any combination of matter and energy. In none of the badrabbi’s proposals, for example, did he even attempt to reach that level of plausibility.

By: Roy Niles

Roy Niles — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:47:23 +0000

Somewhat akin to satire is irony, the difference of which you likely couldn’t distinguish as well.

The “quote me” comment was ironic, as it was just something I made up on the spot.

The fact is that with the dozens (at least) of very smart cookies that comment on this blog, it is a somewhat dubious honor that I’m the one you have chosen to take issue with.

But I have nevertheless done my best to appear I was stooping to the occasion. Hey, that would make a good quote too!

By: Roy Niles

Roy Niles — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:00:49 +0000

As usual you don’t know the difference between an explanation of a process and the level of expertise involved in its application.

Megalomania is represented by a boy who thinks he was sent with the understanding he could do a man’s job – yet learns too late he wasn’t actually supposed to go at all.

Reminds of another example of Jewish folk wisdom by inference:
Did you hear the one about the ill equipped warrior who could never countenance an admission of failure – so before he went into battle he left behind a note assuring anyone who might find it that he wasn’t really as dead as had been reported.

By: badrabbi

badrabbi — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:45:41 +0000

I see, you were using ridicule in the style of voltaire and Shakespeare. I should quote you on things. Ok.

What is your opinion on megalomania?