If thou art not mine friend... (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 23, 2012, 23:47 (4405 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Recently, in another discussion, Matt posted the following:
> 
> >The problem is that the only dissenters are proponents of ID, which is a philosophical challenge only. There isn't a single testable claim made by ID, so in that light it is rightly castigated. Saying "life is too complex to have arrived by chance" isn't a scientifically testable statement.
> 
> >The vitriol of the biological community is due to ID proponents attempting to launch their philosophical views into technical journals. I promise you, if they were submitting the papers into the philosophical journals where they belong, the fight wouldn't be so fierce. ID is not science.
> 
> This is one of the fundamental problems I have with the evolution debate. It is the tired argument of "If thou art not mine friend, then thou art mine enemy!" 
> 
> In this light, anyone who questions the dogma of evolution is immediately caste as a proponent of Intelligent Design, Creationist, Religious Fanatic, Young Earth Creationist, or some variety thereof. How does this lend itself to the scientific method?
> -You need to read the book "Denying Evolution," by Massimo Pigliucci. -He discusses EXACTLY this issue. He points out that ID (at least in America) is ultimately derived by a political agenda wishing to resurrect Protestant Christianity as the dominant philosophy for the entire country. It makes people like David look like cads. -He states, (paraph.) Scientists of any religious background checks their religion at the door of the laboratory. -> In that same thread, I posed a solution: Prove that new innovations can occur(as opposed to adaptations), and I gave criteria for the experiment. Matt immediately posted an experiment that ignored the criteria laid out completely, as if that defeated my argument. 
> -How? -> Now, granted, I AM a proponent for intelligent design, and make no bones about it. However, if everyone that questions the dogma is labeled immediately, with the follow up loss of research funding, denial of tenure, and all of the other well documented things that happen once such a label is applied, how can science ever discover if it has made a mistake or not?-If an experiment prevails that undermines a hypothesis. Truth always prevails. You can't name a single instance where it hasn't.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"