This is what i wrote in a previous answer to you.I think if you want to make a statement like that, you should back it up with a quote.What the DI does, is promoting a belief based on faith, and pretend it is science, that is simply not honest
Makes it pretty clear, not?According to it's founding document the Wedge Strategy, it's goals are:
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God
About that debate, it was organized at Biola University, Which is (no surprise) a private christian university.From what I have read of the DI's output, they leave theological questions aside, and focus on the science. If you watched the video, you will see that they prevailed over and over based on scientific arguments. In fact, it was the other side that kept bringing God into the discussion to try to discredit the DI folk!
The opponents of ID/creationism were not the most well versed with the DI arguments.
From the info on the video:
Only one scientist comes from a scientific field with real relevance.Bruce Weber (Biochemistry, Cal State Fullerton), Larry Herber (Geology, Cal Poly Pomona, ret.), Jim Hofmann (Liberal Studies, Cal State Fullerton), Craig Nelson (Liberal Studies Cal State Fullerton) and Charlotte Laws (columnist/author), and Keith Morrison (Dateline NBC).
More important though, how can you know their arguments are scientific? That has always been my main point in this thread.
Let me repeat:
It has set up a closed system of it's own "scientific" institute, that publishes it's own "scientific" publication where the institutes "scientists" conveniently can have their "papers" peer reviewed.
This is going through the motions with the only purpose being the ability to claim "peer review" for their "work"
This is not science, this is not even pseudoscience, this is pretend science.
The researcher, institute, publisher, reviewer are all the same entity, an entity that has no further ties with any scientific body.
How can we trust anything that comes from such a system? Do you?
To me, that makes everything that comes from that source fatally flawed.
Of course, they keep their mock science and their religion separated, that is the whole point of starting the DI.If they had been thumping a bible, I doubt if any of the proponents would have bothered to pursue the subject further!
But that does not mean that their non-religious content is science, it can be bullshit without being religious.
This is what i repeated on this thread, from another thread:Bart, it isn't just the DI, it is also this crowd:
http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/
They are scientists who definitely see the shortcomings of evolution by natural selection, but they seem to think there is a middle way that would replace natural selection with something that seems decidedly fuzzy right now. Now remember, that conventional science - of which Dawkins is an extreme example - have simply banged on the idea that natural selection solves everything, while privately acknowledging that it can't explain many things for exactly the reasons we have discussed here.
If (and I think it is a big if) the Third Way people are able to produce a biological theory that can replace NS (at least in the cases where NS obviously can't work) then fine - maybe it will be time to forget about ID, but what I object to, is scientists who pretend they can answer all the criticism of NS, when patently they cannot.
As long as they fight for their ideas in the scientific literature, let us wait and see.The third way movement, is interesting, but it is also a very big tent.
if i take a look at the list of authors, and their work, they represent a very wide range of viewpoints.
To me they look a bit to heterogeneous to be one movement.
But, at first sight, most of them seem honestly frustrated scientifically or philosophically.
I am all for forgetting about the DI, but whenever the next discussion about evolution comes around, i am sure anti-evolutionists invariably are going to prove their point by linking to DI sources.
I completely disagree, the discovery of DNA, is what made evolution theory complete, it was the piece that made the puzzle complete.NS made far more sense in the time of Darwin, where the nature of genes was unknown, but they were assumed to be fairly simple things. This is because NS operates best where the are a sequence of steady improvements to be made - A,B,C,D,E,F. If B is more efficient than A, and C more efficient than B, etc, then one can see how this could work to bring about evolution. However, if the transition from A to B involves 100 steps which individually have no advantage to the organism - that is where NS fails, and the DNA encoding is exactly like that - half a gene for a new protein is completely worthless!
One of the things that helps the opponents of ID, is that nobody yet can make a video (not a simulation) of all the unbelievably complex machinery to be found in a single cell. Every bit of that machinery would require a long string of mutations to create it, and then, unless it was the last piece of something like the flagellum, it would be useless - so NS could not help in its evolution.
Come back Lone Shaman!
David
He would probably back up what you said backed up by linking to the DI blog "evolution news", or Axe's work, both DI.
Besides that, given honest criteria for banning, and his tendency for ad hominem he would be very quickly banned.