Re: [asa] dawkins and collins on "Fresh Air" interview program

On 3/31/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/31/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/31/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Not the slightest chance when every few days we get the repeated
> > mantra of "Scientifically
> > > Vacuous" rammed down our throats. There is one thing I know well, and
> that is that Pim thinks
> > > ID is scientifically vacuous, because he must have told us so about 150
> times!
> > > It's about time both sides started listening to each other instead of
> making insulting statements
> >
> > It's not meant as an insult but as a simple observation of fact. ID is
> > scientifically vacuous because of the simple reason that it lacks a
> > foundation to make a non-begging-the-question assumption about
> > anything. At best it can argue 'X cannot be explained by Y' but that
> > has no relevance to the position of ID.
>
> Pim,
>
> You may not take it as an insult, but that's how it comes across, and
> furthermore you repeat this "scientifically vacuous" observation literally
> ad nauseam. I did a Google search on the phrase "scientifically vacuous"
> and found that most of the hits at the top of the list were places on the
> web where you've used the phrase. There were a couple of places where
> someone called "Wedgie World" seems to have picked up the meme you've
> started her.

Excellent

> But in dialogue (and that was in the context that I made the original point)
> to call the other person's ideas "scientifically vacuous" isn't exactly
> going to make them willing to continue. During the time when I thought ID
> had a fair point to make (I no longer think it holds water) to be told that
> the ideas I espoused were "vacuous" would have just antagonized me.

Calling ID scientifically is not going to make others willing to
continue either. Perhaps you feel antagonized but the evidence in
favor of my observation sticks. Perhaps it's too late to save those
caught up by the ID meme, but it surely can help save those toying
with the idea.

> If you're really interested in dialoging with ID people, then you would do
> well to find more creative methods than just repeating that they are wrong
> in the same way over and over again. Your "scientifically vacuous" phrase
> is just as irritating as the creationists I try to debate with who
> repeatedly tell me they are "underwhelmed" (I do so hate that word!) with
> the evidence for evolution. It's time both sides started to listen to each
> other rather than getting into endless cycles of I'm right/you're wrong.

I doubt that ID, at least at the leadership level, is interested in a
dialogue as their goals are not scientific but political and religious
in nature.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Mar 31 17:19:44 2007