A charming article about bees was damaged badly by ad hominem remarks made against the ID community, by people who apparently have little or no idea what they're talking about.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'With an air of triumph, LiveScience announced that Caltech scientists have won one against ID:
"Proponents of intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being [sic] rather than evolution is responsible for life’s complexities, have long criticized science [sic] for not being able to explain some natural phenomena, such as how bees fly. Now scientists have put this perplexing mystery to rest." 1.
- when I read something as stupid as this I have a temptation to fall into despair. Are these people truly this ignorant (of ID), or are they deliberately lying? It's usually difficult to know.
- ID theory (of which I'm not a proponent) does Not state that a 'supreme being' is responsible for life. (If someone within the movement does, they should be quoted.)
- the author (or team of authors) states that ID proponents have criticized 'science.' This is fallacious and incoherent. Science is a word; you can't criticize a word. This is the fallacy of personification.
- I suppose it's necessary to point out (yet again) that to describe something is NOT to explain it. (Is this somehow too difficult for these geniuses to comprehend?) The ID argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is Not that certain animal behaviors or organs can't be described (whoever said this?) but that they can't be accounted for by a purely materialistic account of the universe.
- let's reiterate previous posts; it's one of the basics of intellectual life that you present your opponent's position fairly and accurately. Why is it evolutionists refuse to do this? One would like to know. If evolutionary theory is a fact, and creation a fantasy story, why would one need to lie about things?
- in a defense of evolutionist writers I would point out that most seem unaware that the subject of 'philosophy of science' even exists. Their writing shows an abysmal ignorance of any reflective debate on the deeper issues of science; of what science is, of what scientific explanations are; of what s explanations can and cannot achieve; of the difference between description and explanation; etc.
2. ''They are also pleased that a simple thing like bee flight can no longer be used as an example of science failing to explain a common phenomenon.'
- I have news for these authors; 'science' doesn't explain anything. Scientists make attempts to explain things. That it isn't good enough to describe this honestly, is evidence that evolutionists need to turn their theories into a religion. This is shown clearly in their continual personifying of science. (I'm amazed at how unreflective they seem to be about doing this.) What we see is a desire to turn a process engaged in by fallible, finite (sinful) human beings into some kind of god like Person... a person who is infallible, infinite and utterly neutral and good.
3. " Proponents of intelligent design, or ID, have tried in recent years [sic] to promote the idea of a supreme being [sic] by discounting science [sic] because it can’t explain everything in nature.''
- one wonders why they don't use quotations for these charges. Is it because they don't know what they're talking about?
- who in ID is 'discounting science'? Who?
- the fact of the matter (if this counts :=) is that the ID thinkers I'm aware of do not believe this at all.
- once again we have to remind the authors that there is a world of difference between 'science' and materialism. ID people don't 'discount' science, they deny that materialism can fully account for the organisms that populate the planet. (etc.)
4. “People in the ID community [who?] have said that we don’t even know how bees fly,” [Douglas] Altshuler [Caltech] said. “We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us.”
- who in the ID community denied we can use science to understand the world around us? Who? (I'll tell you who; no one, that's who.) And why all this lying and deceit? If they're going to lie repeatedly (and stupidly) in a single article why should we believe they're honest in what they say about Origins? We can all see clearly that they're perfectly willing to lie repeatedly, to slander, to deceive. If they would do it here, why wouldn't they do it elsewhere?
- again science is personified. (Do the authors even realize they're doing this?) They should have said 'the scientific method' not 'science.'
Notes;
1. I found this story at Creation/Evolution Headlines; Step Aside, Creationists: Darwinists Figured Out How Bees Fly 01/10/2006
2. 'The research revolved around fairly mundane lab work, observing bees with high-speed cameras and robotic sensors, in different concentrations of oxygen and with varying payloads to analyze their aerodynamic principles. They mainly discovered that the insects use principles different than those of airplanes and helicopters. There was no mention of how these flight mechanisms evolved. It was even subtitled, “Robotic wings mimic insects’ rapid beat and could inspire new designs.”
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
