James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by John Clinch , Monday, July 20, 2009, 11:05 (5604 days ago) @ David Turell

Let's try and avoid sterile ad hominems. As I said before I have no doubt about your brilliance but I was making the very simple point that being of high intelligence, as you undoubtedly are, does not provide immunity from specious thinking. It is a fact, for example, that students have a more positive beliefs in the paranormal and conspiracy theories than do the background population. - And I was making the obvious point that, like me, you are not an expert in this, a very specialised field. 
 
By the way, psedoscientists positively DO NOT go around trying to publish in scientific journal ... surely you know that they go out of their way to AVOID such publications because they know that so many readers of high intellect will read their crap and pull it apart. It's why they tend to want to sue people for criticising them rather than present their evidence to people who can think critically ... to wit, the British Chiropractors Association's disgraceful lawsuit against science journalist Simon Singh. In the backlash, they were challenged to come up with the evidence to support their claims and I understand that, now it has been published, it really is rubbish. Mostly it's "evidence" of the poor quality of OTHER treatment. - In some ways, when I reflect on it, there are similarities here. Your "evidence" about RNA and so on can only be "evidence" against the idea that complex life arose spontaneously. Even you must admit it can never be positive evidence FOR an interventionist God ... which is, as you say, a metaphysical claim. The best that the you can do is the argument from personal incredulity. It's so complex it must have had a designer. I've said that before and it hasn't been addressed ... I ain't the only one here whose comments are skipped over! - Go and try and find evidence for God in RNA and good luck. You're not alone in your desire and many have tried before to prove God by looking at nature. I think you are guilty of repeating William Paley's mistake with his watch and his eye analogy. The teleological argument is persuasive but Paley got it famously wrong and, with all due respect, I think you have as well.