ID is just a plea for special consideration of some peoples religious beliefs that they wish to privilege as science, when convenient, and privilege as religion at otherwise.
I wouldn’t doubt that many people will shift from high epistemic standards (”science”) to low standards (”religion”) based on convenience. That is the way of the world, all need reformation. Currently the established orthodoxy which purports to define knowledge/science in academic settings is Darwinism and it is clearly sorely in need of reformation, so what difference is it to me if there are some rabble rousers? They are typically necessary after all.
Note that Darwinists already shift from high epistemic standards to low: "We now know that the earth revolves around the sun so it’s obvious that we will inevitably progress towards a similar form of knowledge about the origin of life forms."
On the one hand a basic empirical fact is cited, then shifted seamlessly into a claim that may well be nonsense. What if sentience actually doesn’t reduce to the laws of physics as currently known?
“The theory of evolution is just like the theory of gravity.”
That’s just ignorant and only reveals the ignorance or charlatanism of anyone who makes such an argument.
“We have observed insecticide resistance, therefore we have a knowledge of the origin of all specification and form found in living organisms.”
Etc. Biologists are generally stupid enough to make such arguments, apparently. But what is to be expected of those who believe that intelligent selection based on sight and sentience is actually an illusion of blind, inanimate processes?
No comments:
Post a Comment