Hannodb
|
I definitely think this topic is biased! It constantly claims directly and indirectly that ID is Creationism in disguise, and that those who advances the theory has a secret religious agenda. For instance, I do not see what the relevance is of pointing out that Michelle Behe is a Catholic. Apart from the fact that the Catholic Church has embraced Darwinian theory, Behe himself used to accept the mainstream Darwinian theory. In fact, he hasn't rejected Evolutionary theory, he just came to believe that it has limits. He never advocated classical Creationism before becoming an ID advocate. Another example of this is dr. Dean Kenyon, who co-authored "Biochemical Predestination". The idea that he, who used much of his career in abiogenesis studies, was motivated by religious reasons to support ID is simply preposterous and bad propaganda. It is also hard to believe that Antony Flew, who converted from atheism to deism due to ID, would've done so based on weak Creationist arguments. Richard Dawkins himself is on record for saying that the conclusion of design is not necessarily evidence of God, and therefore ID is not necessarily a religious argument. To say ID is a religious argument because most of its proponents are religious, is like saying Darwinism is a religious argument, because many of its proponents are atheists.
Those who are actually familiar with ID arguments, are also aware that there are a lot of people in the scientific community who runs a propaganda campaigns against ID, misrepresenting the arguments and the evidence in order to discredit it. Claims that it is "not science", or "bad theology", or "Creationism in disguise" are a feeble attempt to avoid the very strong arguments made by the ID proponents, and it only serves to weaken the case of ID's opponents. You don't have to agree with it, but this kind of propaganda only serves to prove the bad faith of people who can't refute it.
To say that there is no bad faith in the opposition to ID, is refuted by this statement from Carl Sagan:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
Although his honesty is refreshing, it is also the basis for bad science. True science is not suppose to make a priori assumptions on where the evidence should lead. I really don't see any difference between science that exclude certain conclusions based on materialistic assumptions and creationism.
Unfortunately, with so many people opposed to give ID a fair hearing, it is unlikely that this article would ever be neutral.
Hannodb, 14:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Much of your argument is flawed. The article reports what reliable sources have said, and reliable sources, including court cases, say ID is creationism in disguise. On that point there should be no debate.
- As for your other arguments, provide reliable sources and proposed changes, rather than just make assertions and engaging in quote-mining. It would be far better for you to propose and discuss constructive changes rather than simply complain about bias that you personally perceive. We welcome constructive suggestions. Now the question remains, are you going to provide any, or is this just another hit-and-run post from an ID supporter who hasn't really read the article and its sources thoroughly? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I userfied this comment and reply. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you don't have a source to substantiate your complaint, we aren't really interested. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)