Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

September 28, 2005

Evolution: Suppressing scientific inquiry

From Evolution News & Views...

At the end of today's testimony in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, the plaintiffs' team highlighted for reporters a key plank of their argument against the Dover Policy calling student's attention to a book in the school library about intelligent design.

Plaintiffs reiterated evolutionist Dr. Kenneth Miller's testimony that whereas design theorist Dr. Michael Behe's irreducible complexity argument is testable and, therefore, scientific, "Irreducible complexity is just a negative argument against Darwinism, not a positive argument for design." Thus, while irreducible complexity is a scientific hypothesis, the design inference supposedly is not. Miller insisted this holds for all intelligent design hypotheses. None of them, Miller argued, contains positive evidence for design.

Interesting that they claim to not want it taught in the school, but allow a book about it in the library. Do they stick a disclaimer notice in the library book?

The argument that one's opponent offers no “positive proof” is an old red herring. When you have two mutually exclusive ideas, obviously they each are negative toward the other, therefore one could (albeit irrationally) argue that each idea offers no “positive” proof, since it is negative by virtue of being in disagreement with the other. The same can be said for Evolution as well as ID, but only the Evolutionists are dimwitted enough to actually make the spurious argument.

Posted by Danny Carlton at September 28, 2005 06:52 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/2054

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.