Deinonychus antirrhopus

I've been diligently following the discussion on ID (or the lack thereof), and I have found these articles particularly interesting. And I believe it's time for me to weigh in on the subject, whether that is widely desired or not.

I support ID. Well, I support arguing over ID. I like a good argument.

It seems to me that the ID people raise some questions. Obviously Steve doesn't think them serious questions, but the fact that the evolutionists feel the need to answer them says something. You don't see them defending against the flat-earthers.

The reason people don't defend against flat earthers is that the claims are obviously wrong. With ID the arguments are well crafted to be very, very hard to follow. On one hand the IDists will say X to the public. To the faithfull they'll say Y. Also, in their talks, writings, and so forth the IDists will say X, X' and X" and then use them interchangably giving the impression they mean the same things, but then fall back on them not meaning the same thing in responding to critics. Then there are the outright untruths about things the average person knows little about.

As propaganda, ID is good propaganda. As science/critical thinking it stinks, but is somewhat hard to spot.

ID aggravates me to no end. There are plenty of psychological studies and neuroscience research that point out that humans are prone to find patterns where there are none. I used to use two things to try to demonstrate this to people. First, I would point them to web based versions of Conway's Game of Life, where they can watch patterns evolve from random beginnings. Most people still don't get it, though. I also used to show them an original copy of Beowulf from 1000 years ago and talk about how language evolves a handful of words at a time, not all at once. I thought this would help people understand how lots of little changes add up to huge changes over time even though at any given point, very little is changing. They rarely get that either.

I watched a creationist on tv once say that it is a flawed argument to say that because 98% of our DNA matches that of higher order primates we are genetic cousins. He said that we are 95% water, and so are Jellyfish. Then he asked if we were cousins to the jellyfish too. I kept wondering how the hell he got a PhD, making conceptual mistakes like that.

Rob,

In answer to your last question, I think the answer is a split level ranch house better known as Patriot University, or PU (appropriate initials) for short.

I share your frustration. The concepts in the ID/evolution debate are fairly abstract concepts and I feel this is partly by design on the part of the IDers. With abstract concepts it is easier to baffle the average Joe with BS the average Joe doesn't understand (at least not without alot of set-up costs--i.e., education).

As propaganda, ID is good propaganda. As science/critical thinking it stinks, but is somewhat hard to spot.

I understand that the ID people have no testable hypothesis, they just throw rocks at evolution theory. This, however, makes the evolutionists work harder at having full facts, and makes for a weirdly fascinating argument for me to watch.

Go ID! Go ID!

Ron,

You are an argument pervert...or something...LOL.

Hey, I even have some arguments showing the Earth is flat. I tried some out here and got completely panned. Heartbreaking.

But I deny the pervert part. Say rather that I am a connoisseur of arguments.

ID is all too often nothing more than a trojan for creationism

bargarz, uh, I would replace "all too often" with "always". See Steve's reference in previous posts to the "Wedge strategy".