Uuuh. This is so tipical of most people who are against ID: The don't have no idea what it is, but that doesn't stop them from having an emotional outburst about it.
Michelle Behe, one of the main figures in the ID movement and author of the book "Darwin's black box", is a Catholic. If you actually READ his book before critisising his ideas, you would've known that.
OOPS!!!
Future generations will view the rise of Intelligent Design and other challenges to materialism in the same light as we view Gallileo today.
The fact of the matter is that those who are fighting "to save science" are actually those who are destroying it: They are materialist reductionists. Science used to be about empirical evidence, testable hypothesis, and an honnest search for the truth, whatever it might be. However, during the 20th century, this was replaced with materialist ideology. When someone says "ID is anti-science", he actually says it is "anti-materialist". According to materialist reductionists (MR), everything can be reduced to primitave particles including the human consciousness, the universe created itself without an intelligent agent, and it has no meaning. This is a philosofical worldview, not science. When ID proponents comes with empirical evidence and solid arguements, MR-ists claims it is "anti science" and "a return to the dark ages", comparing it to all kinds of debunked medieval ideas. It is interesting to note that they NEVER give an accurate description of what ID actually states. The reason for this is simple : if you can't debunk it, deface it. And while ID "have no evidence and can't be falsified", these MR-ists are happy to promote Evolutionary phycology as a science. Here you have a "dicipline" that is based purely on speculation, with no data, and no way of being verified, being promoted as a valid science. All the "sciences" dealing with origins are actually based on philosofical assumptions which has nothing to do with science. That's why they haven't developed much in 150 years: They ignore evidence that goes against the materialist worldview, and some are even willing to fabricate evidence to support materialism. As a result, science are comming to a standstill, because those who claim that they do not believe in anything without evidence, is forcing science to support materialism, even when it goes against the evidence. But then again, what can you expect from people who honnestly believe their own consciousness is an illusion?
Slashdot Mirror
Uuuh. This is so tipical of most people who are against ID: The don't have no idea what it is, but that doesn't stop them from having an emotional outburst about it. Michelle Behe, one of the main figures in the ID movement and author of the book "Darwin's black box", is a Catholic. If you actually READ his book before critisising his ideas, you would've known that. OOPS!!!
Future generations will view the rise of Intelligent Design and other challenges to materialism in the same light as we view Gallileo today. The fact of the matter is that those who are fighting "to save science" are actually those who are destroying it: They are materialist reductionists. Science used to be about empirical evidence, testable hypothesis, and an honnest search for the truth, whatever it might be. However, during the 20th century, this was replaced with materialist ideology. When someone says "ID is anti-science", he actually says it is "anti-materialist". According to materialist reductionists (MR), everything can be reduced to primitave particles including the human consciousness, the universe created itself without an intelligent agent, and it has no meaning. This is a philosofical worldview, not science. When ID proponents comes with empirical evidence and solid arguements, MR-ists claims it is "anti science" and "a return to the dark ages", comparing it to all kinds of debunked medieval ideas. It is interesting to note that they NEVER give an accurate description of what ID actually states. The reason for this is simple : if you can't debunk it, deface it. And while ID "have no evidence and can't be falsified", these MR-ists are happy to promote Evolutionary phycology as a science. Here you have a "dicipline" that is based purely on speculation, with no data, and no way of being verified, being promoted as a valid science. All the "sciences" dealing with origins are actually based on philosofical assumptions which has nothing to do with science. That's why they haven't developed much in 150 years: They ignore evidence that goes against the materialist worldview, and some are even willing to fabricate evidence to support materialism. As a result, science are comming to a standstill, because those who claim that they do not believe in anything without evidence, is forcing science to support materialism, even when it goes against the evidence. But then again, what can you expect from people who honnestly believe their own consciousness is an illusion?