Note to meteorologists: You’re next

| 367 Comments | 1 TrackBack

In a recent post, I noted in passing that modern evolutionary theory is no more atheistic than other sciences that seek natural explanations for the natural world. Yet for some reason, Phillip Johnson and the rest of the ID camp think that it is evolution in particular that is inconsistent with Christianity. As Johnson stated in yesterday’s Washington Post article,

‘I realized…that if the pure Darwinist account was accurate and life is all about an undirected material process, then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy. Here was a chance to make a great contribution.’

Now, imagine how silly it would seem if Phillip Johnson had said this:

‘I realized…that if the pure scientific meteorologist account was accurate and weather is all about an undirected material process, then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy. Here was a chance to make a great contribution.’

According to a literal reading of the Bible, the evidence that God controls the weather is, if anything, much stronger than the Biblical evidence that God specially created organisms. PT poster Wesley Elsberry ran a search on an online Bible and found a slurry of quotes explicitly describing God’s influence on the weather. The Bible is shot through with such statements, from Old Testament to New. They are re-posted below for posterity.

A couple of minutes with BibleGateway shows that there are several references in the bible to God being a maker and controller of weather. Looking for ‘storm’ and ‘wind’, I found the following references:

Exodus 10:13 So Moses stretched out his staff over Egypt, and the LORD made an east wind blow across the land all that day and all that night. By morning the wind had brought the locusts;

Numbers 11:31 Now a wind went out from the LORD and drove quail in from the sea. It brought them [ Or They flew ] down all around the camp to about three feet [ Hebrew two cubits (about 1 meter) ] above the ground, as far as a day’s walk in any direction.

Isaiah 11:15 The LORD will dry up the gulf of the Egyptian sea; with a scorching wind he will sweep his hand over the Euphrates River. [ Hebrew the River ] He will break it up into seven streams so that men can cross over in sandals.

Jeremiah 4:12 a wind too strong for that comes from me. [ Or comes at my command ] Now I pronounce my judgments against them.’

Jeremiah 10:13 When he thunders, the waters in the heavens roar; he makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth. He sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.

Ezekiel 13:13 Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: In my wrath I will unleash a violent wind, and in my anger hailstones and torrents of rain will fall with destructive fury.

Hosea 13:15 even though he thrives among his brothers. An east wind from the LORD will come, blowing in from the desert; his spring will fail and his well dry up. His storehouse will be plundered of all its treasures.

Amos 4:13 He who forms the mountains, creates the wind, and reveals his thoughts to man, he who turns dawn to darkness, and treads the high places of the earth— the LORD God Almighty is his name.

Jonah 1:4 Then the LORD sent a great wind on the sea, and such a violent storm arose that the ship threatened to break up.

Jonah 4:8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, ‘It would be better for me to die than to live.’

Zechariah 10:1 [ The LORD Will Care for Judah ] Ask the LORD for rain in the springtime; it is the LORD who makes the storm clouds. He gives showers of rain to men, and plants of the field to everyone.

Mark 4:39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, ‘Quiet! Be still!’ Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

Luke 8:25 He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. ‘Where is your faith?’ he asked his disciples. In fear and amazement they asked one another, ‘Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him.’ Wes Elsberry

Now, of course, I don’t actually think for a second that naturalistic meteorology actually undermines Christianity. People still pray about the weather, even though they know that weather is caused by natural processes. Belief in natural processes, and belief in God’s action in the world, are simply not in conflict for these people. If God can act through natural processes, then a natural explanation of something is not a threat to the belief system.

I suspect that this belief – about meteorology – is almost universal among Christians, evangelical or otherwise. I also suspect that it is almost universal held among Christians of all stripes that theological beliefs about the weather belong in the church and home, and not the public schools. People still pray for rain, but there is no big movement to teach bogus “criticisms of naturalistic meteorology”, attempting to insert divine intervention into the fact that tornadoes are still fairly mysterious, or the fact that scientists are not omniscient predictors of the weather. There is no attempt to divide “micro-operational science”, which can be done in a lab, from “macro-operational science”, which cannot be done in a lab. There is no attempt to rule the latter hopelessly untestable, and therefore to consider macro-meteorology and miracles as equally scientifically valid.

What ID advocates have to explain is why evolution is different from meteorology with respect to theology. The fun thing about the Meteorology Argument is how rapidly ID advocates contort and twist themselves into knots as soon as they attempt to address the argument. David Heddle gave us an example:

I have no idea what Johnson believes, but it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic. So someone could, self-consistently, believe that evolution promotes atheism and meteorology does not.

What Heddle doesn’t provide, and couldn’t provide under questioning, was any reason why evolution and meteorology are logically any different with respect to the theism/atheism question. The best he did was bluster “it’s obvious.”

Another example from a few years back is Casey Luskin of the IDEA center:

Stormy weather

[Matzke] suggests that if the weather is undirected, then meteorologists should rightly employ the same materialist philosophy Wells criticizes. [Ignore this ad hom in the first sentence for the moment – N.M.] However, the difference between the weather and evolution is that the processes controlling weather are be observed in the present to be based upon chance and law. The origin of biological organisms took place in the past, where the processes involved cannot be accessed. By assuming that only naturalistic processes were at work in the past, evolutionists make stronger philosophical statements than meteorologists, who can directly observe that naturalistic processes are at work in the present. Given that many unknowns about causes of weather will always exist, for we cannot know what is always happening in the sky, it is possible that God “makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth; [and] sends lightning with the rain”58 after all! However, given that we observe weather in the present obeying natural laws, scientists are not unjustified in relegating explanations of present weather to the natural realm.

To summarize, Luskin says:

(1) Meteorologists observe natural processes operating today (2) Evolutionists, although they can observe natural processes operating now, can’t observe natural processes operating in the past (3) Meteorologists actually can’t directly observe all the natural processes operating today in controlling the weather (weather is a chaotic system, highly sensitive to initial micro-conditions that cannot be observed – this is the butterfly effect) (4) So maybe God is miraculously intervening in the weather after all, like the literal reading of the Bible says (5) But meteorologists are justified in using exclusively natural processes in their work, while evolutionary biologists are being dogmatic philosophical materialists for doing so.

It makes perfect sense!

The only way the IDists can escape the Meteorology Argument is (1) give up on their core claim, or (2) be self-consistent, and state that meteorologists are also nasty, society-undermining secular dogmatists promoting atheism, philosophical materialism, and moral decay under the guise of science. Option #1 doesn’t seem very likely, so I bet we’ll be seeing meteorology warning labels in public schools and on the public airwaves (your local news weatherman is actually promoting atheism over the air!) sooner or later.

1 TrackBack

Nick Matzke over at The Panda's Thumb makes an interesting critique of Intelligent Design. Basically, he's saying that evolution is attacked because it is an unguided materialistic process, which is cold and meaningless and takes away from a religious ... Read More

367 Comments

Then perhaps astronomers:

The Bible and all real evidence confirms that this is precisely what He did, and indeed:

The Earth is not rotating…nor is it going around the sun.

The universe is not one ten trillionth the size we are told.

Today’s cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as “science”.

The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie.

Those lies have planted the Truth-killing virus of evolutionism

in every aspect of man’s “knowledge” about the Universe, the

Earth, and Himself.

(from http://www.fixedearth.com/ )

I hate to say it Nick, but:

“Now, imagine how silly it would seem if Phillip Johnson had said this:”

the fact that you have to point out that it seems sillier to say one over the other kinda defeats the point in a way, yes?

while it is absolutely correct to say (emphasis added):

“What Heddle doesn’t provide, and couldn’t provide under questioning, was any reason why evolution and meteorology are logically any different with respect to the theism/atheism question. The best he did was bluster “it’s obvious.”

the question then becomes:

Why does it “seem” silly to swap meteorology for evolutionary biology to begin with, since logically they are no different?

ID’s whole support structure is not based on logic, but rather “what seems apparent”.

“What ID advocates have to explain is why evolution is different from meteorology with respect to theology. “

but as you saw with Heddle, this won’t happen. They won’t ever compare things from a logical standpoint, but rather filter it through their perception.

I wonder about the value of pointing out that ID/creationists are illogical. That never ends up being something that affects folks decisions about religion/science issues, unless they typically have some science background themselves.

Can you see what i am getting at?

Now before anyone starts criticising Nick, or saying that ID does not believe in inserting religion in every science, let’s hear from William Dembski:

“Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory.”1


1 http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/artic[…]Design.shtml

What ID advocates have to explain is why evolution is different from meteorology with respect to theology.

Or, as I have asked several of the IDers here;

What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine. Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or “divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic (oops, I mean, “materialistic” and “naturalistic” —- we don’t want any judges to think ID’s railing against “materialism” has any RELIGIOUS purpose, do we)?

I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accifdent investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.” I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”. Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic (oops, sorry, I meant to say “materialistic” and “naturalistic” — we don’t want any judges to know that it is “atheism” we are actually waging a religious crusade against, do we)?

How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” . … . ?

Oddly enough, no one ever attemtped to answer that simple question.

Just like they never attempted to answer my question about the scientific theory of ID and how it can be tested using the scientific method.

I wonder why that would be . … . .

What Heddle doesn’t provide, and couldn’t provide under questioning, was any reason why evolution and meteorology are logically any different with respect to the theism/atheism question. The best he did was bluster “it’s obvious.”

As I have often pointed out, Davey has this rather annoying habit of assuming that he has some sort of religious authority to pronounce his Holy Judgement upon such matters. Hence, I must often pipe up and point out to everyone that David is, well, just a man. His religious opinions are just that, his opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow his religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

No valid argument moves from Darwinism or evolution to atheism, or from theism to creationism. Johnson’s comment - “…then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy” - is absurd. God could have chosen to create through a fully naturalistic, Darwinian process.

That said, it is not an either/or game here. The belief that, e.g., a divine being directed evolution does not commit one to the belief that angels push the planets around or that Poseiden’s wrath makes for bad sailing. One could consistently maintain that natural causes and miracles are operative.

Not to mention all those hard working angels flying around and keeping our feet firmly planted on the ground, and the planets in orbit around the sun.

After all, it’s no less plausible than our current theories about gravity, no?

“Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory.”

So maybe Dave Heddle can explain to us how ID is going to put christ in, hmm…Plate Tectonics? oh, wait, how about Maxwell’s Laws?

I think you forgot the most stunning example of biblical meteorology:

“[12] And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: [13] I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. [14] And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: [15] And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. [16] And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. [17] And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.”

Here you have an incredibly direct and unambiguous statement – not an interpretation – from the mouth of Yahweh himself, saying in no uncertain terms that he is causally responsible for a meteorological phenomenon, and even going a step further by explicitly telling us *why* he did it.

In my high school physics class, we actually spent an entire unit learning about refraction by studying the physics of rainbows. I literally have yet to meet a single creationist who could explain to me why simple refraction is less of a theological problem than evolution, or why unweaving the rainbow by showing how different wavelengths of light behave differently in prisms “impermissibly imports naturalistic metaphysical assumptions”.

PT has some informative posts, some mean-spirited posts, and some posts that are outright distortions, but this is the first one that I recall that is downright silly. Was it meant to be?

Sir-toejam, I not only pointed out (in several comments) on the other thread that it was obvious that evolution/meteorology were different with respect to the atheism question, I gave the reason: evolution, dealing with basic questions of life, is more likely to arouse tension with one’s theism.

Greg Peterson came along and demonstrated this nicely in this comment #30440 in which he wrote:

And let’s not pretend that the fact of evolution leaves it no less likely that there is a god. Now that we know there’s not the least spot of work for a god to do, let’s declare our emancipation from this nasty, pathetic superstition.

Have you run across many comments of the form:

And let’s not pretend that the fact of meteorology leaves it no less likely that there is a god. Now that we know there’s not the least spot of work for a god to do, weather-wise, let’s declare our emancipation from this nasty, pathetic superstition.

yikes, hedley, the quotes you put in “support” of your argument, er, aren’t.

“Sir-toejam, I not only pointed out (in several comments) on the other thread that it was obvious that evolution/meteorology were different with respect to the atheism question, I gave the reason: evolution, dealing with basic questions of life, is more likely to arouse tension with one’s theism.”

you make my point for me more eloquently that i did in my response to nick.

you don’t get that there is, in fact, no logical difference between evolution/meterology. Nick’s post above demonstrates this quite nicely.

However, it is VERY clear that you are literally unable to grasp this.

THAT is the point I was trying to make. It makes no difference to folks like yourself that there is no logic to your argument. In your mind, it makes perfect sense.

Thanks for demonstrating that more clearly than i could describe it.

I hope Nick sees now why i thought that addressing the appearance of “silliness” is more important than addressing the logic behind the argument.

Since you brought up rainbows:

Then there’s the rainbow. If you want to hear some really creative additions to Genesis, ask a young-Earther how there could be no rainbows for a couple thousand years, until after the Flood. You may get some truly bizarre planetary climate models, involving such things as water soaking up through the ground to keep plants alive (let’s see–if there is so much water underground that it soaks UP to the surface, isn’t that what we call a bog? Some paradise!), or a “vapor canopy” that watered the Earth with a kind of fog, then fell as the Flood rains. If you think conditions on Venus are hellish, try modeling the atmospheric conditions on an Earth with all the gigatons of ocean water added to the atmosphere! If Adam’s descendants were protected from such incredible temperatures and pressures (the natural physical result of such super-greenhouse conditions) by some sort of miraculous intervention, then again this is not creation science, just creation magic. (I’ve heard creationists attribute the mythical long life spans of Old Testament notables to such atmospheric conditions. I invite them to try it for themselves to see if it promotes longevity.) But the purpose of the rainbow is what really puzzles me. God states (and repeats–Noah must have been a slow learner [or chronically drunk?]) that the rainbow signifies a promise by God that He will never flood out the whole Earth again. Most creationists I know are dead certain that God WILL destroy the Earth (and soon!), but just not with water next time (most seem to favor fire, but personally I expect it to be peanut butter [extra chunky]). But wait–if God reserves the right to destroy all mankind, then what’s the point of promising not to use water again? We won’t be drowned again, but burnt to cinders? Thanks a lot.

And yet more rainbow nonsense: God states multiple times that it will be in a cloud, He will “set [His] bow in the cloud.” Rainbows aren’t formed or seen “in clouds.” They appear when the sun shines on raindrops and is refracted back at the proper angle to the viewer. They are often seen against a backdrop of clouds, but they are not in the clouds. As a matter of fact, the rainbow doesn’t even exist where it appears to be! It’s an optical illusion that’s “in” the light reaching viewers at the proper angle from sun and rain. You can fly a plane through the exact spot where a ground viewer reports seeing a rainbow. You won’t see anything around you but air and water. You can also make your own rainbows with a garden hose in full sunlight–no clouds required at all. One more: God states unequivocally that the rainbow is to remind Him of the no-Flood clause. If God has such a faulty memory that He needs such cosmic Post-it Notes, we’re in BIG trouble.

http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm

Well Bob, “Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory.” and that would include Optics.

I Just wanted to tell all of you that Jesus (the loving God that created you)loves all of you and He’ll always be waiting for you to turn to Him. And when you do you’ll be stoked cuz He loves you more then you can possibly imagine. God bless all of you

cosmic post it notes…

*snicker*

I don’t know if there are any South Park fans here, but I remember an episode from the first season where cartman talks about rainbows:

KYLE Hey Stan, did you see that rainbow this morning?

STAN Yeah, it was huge!

CARTMAN Eeh, I hate those things.

KYLE Nobody hates rainbows!

STAN Yeah, what’s there to hate about rainbows?

CARTMAN Eeh, you know, you’ll just be sitting there, minding your own business, and they’ll come marching in and crawling up your leg and start biting the inside of your ass, and you’ll be all like “Ay! Get out of my ass, you stupid rainbows!”

STAN Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?

CARTMAN I’m talking about rainbows. I hate those frigging things.

KYLE Rainbows are those little arches of color that show up during a rainstorm.

CARTMAN Oh, rainbows! Oh yeah; I like those; those are cool.

STAN What were you talking about?

CARTMAN Huh? Oh, nothing. Forget it.

d000d you’ve been in touch with Yahweh?

Did he also have any messages for me about why he designed all this unsightly body hair, or why he designed my irreducibly complex immune system to protect me from all the irreucibly complex bacteria he designed?

[Y]ou don’t get that there is, in fact, no logical difference between evolution/meteorology. Nick’s post above demonstrates this quite nicely.

So in other words, if the entire universe were created by the Creator, then logically it doesn’t make much difference which feature of the universe we’re talking about - whether it be life or meteorology, or whatever. (Very well stated, I might add.) The only difference I can think of would be that Mr. Heddle is a “life”, but he isn’t a “meteorology”. Maybe it’s all about the Mr. Heddle and the Mr. Johnson. Maybe it’s all about the IDer, not the IDee.

Having been on the recieving end of Mr. Heddle’s debating “skills” on Orac’s blog, I am now waiting for the inevitable rebuttal, wherein he launches into another dense patch of Heddlespeak that states when it is finally deciphered, that we are all failing to understand him, followed by a different wording of his initial argument that states the exact same thing, only in more obscure terms, and in a more patronizing, insulting manner. And then he will tell us that we are using the same tired arguments against him, the ones he keeps getting accused of using, time after time…

in other words, the ID movement, in a nutshell labeled “heddle”.

…Then Charlie Wagner will show up and say that such a complex system as the Hydrological Cycle, composed of several interlocked parts, with the function of watering plants, could not have arisen without a Designer, according to Nelson’s Flaw.

Michael F

The belief that, e.g., a divine being directed evolution does not commit one to the belief that angels push the planets around or that Poseiden’s wrath makes for bad sailing.

Gee, the hardline religious folks sure are blessed that they get to pick and choose what to believe without fear of being “inconsistent.”

Isn’t that always the rub? Anyone who doesn’t believe in miracles, according to the hardliners, is “committed” to believing that life is meaningless and that the only basis for morals is power.

But somehow it’s permitted and “consistent” with religious beliefs to specifically target evolutionary biologists in a quest to redefine (and dilute) science across the board.

Science does in fact lead to atheism. I became an atheist in collage while studying science. Science is an effort to understand the world/universe by accumulating facts and putting them together into theories that best explain how something works. Unlike religion these theories come and go based on facts. And this is the key: if it can’t be repeated or demonstrated it isn’t science. All anecdotal evidence is rejected.

To me religion (belief in supernatural beings) is fundamentally incompatible with this way of looking at the world. There’s nothing but anecdotal evidence for god and all of that is contradictory. There’s no there there. Nothing to hang your hat on but a just because argument.

Just because science led YOU to atheism, doesn’t mean that atheism flows naturally from it. Have you read this thread at all?

Just because science led YOU to atheism doesn’t mean that atheism flows naturally from it. Did you read any of the many posts on this thread that explain why this is so?

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 64, byte 64 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Somehow us atheists can’t seem to grasp that Heddle’s god is a god of *biology*, and not a weather god. Once one realizes that Heddle’s is the REAL god, his arguments make perfect sense.

Sorry. I didn’t think my first post went through.

Comment #30499

Posted by Harq al-Ada on May 16, 2005 07:47 PM (e) (s)

Just because science led YOU to atheism, doesn’t mean that atheism flows naturally from it. Have you read this thread at all?

I would say science inclines people toward atheism, and this explains why atheists are overrepresented in science by a large factor. I would not say that it’s scientific data per se, I would say that people become exposed to the very rigorous and difficult process of generating reliable knowledge about the world, and they compare that to religious ‘knowledge’, and find the latter to be untrustworthy.

Nick wrote:

According to a literal reading of the Bible, the evidence that God controls the weather is, if anything, much stronger than the Biblical evidence that God specially created organisms.

Au contraire, oh illogical one.

There is zero biblical evidence, in spite of Nick’s assertion and Wesley’s biblical quote mining, that God controls the weather. There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather. Big difference. Just like there is no biblical evidence that God controls the planets motion, micron by micron, but only a passage (the famous one from Joshua) that suggests God can intervene and control the orbits when he chooses.

This is far different from Genesis, which makes the claim that God created life supernaturally.

So once again, the patently obvious, (and as Greg Patterson’s comment supported), the relationship between evolution and atheism is not the same as between meteorology and atheism. You can demonstrate that they are both sciences, but you can only cover your eyes and keep chanting that evolution and atheism have exactly the same relationship as meteorology and atheism—as Greg Patterson’s comment …

I love how you guys suffer paroxysms of agony over the fact that IDers won’t admit that their movement has a theism bias, while denying what goes hand-in-hand, that evolution has a bias toward atheism. You guys never fail to amuse!

MWNP: You comments are as dumb here as they were on Orac’s blog. I wouldn’t of thunk it possible.

During the Taliban’s reign in Afghanistan, weather forecasting was forbidden. They believed that predicting the future was sorcery, and smashed meteorological offices in 1996, for intruding on the province of God.

The ban on this critical information contributed to crop failures and a plane crash in ‘98.

“They were allergic to the word ‘prediction,’” Abdul Qadeer [head of the country’s weather forecasting agency] said of the Taliban’s extreme interpretation of Islam.

“They said God only knows prediction, only God knows these things. We tried to explain that meteorology is not prediction, that it is forecast based on science. It didn’t work.”

There’s a much longer newspaper article about this, but unfortunately it isn’t online anymore. I have my own digital copy, but I don’t want to break the copyright.

Nick quoted Luskin as saying

Evolutionary theory is built upon the scientific method and is science, it still has theological implications. Intelligent design theory is also built upon the scientific method and is science, but it too has theological implications. Both are scientific, but both have religious implications.

That’s a clear statement of the position taken by Calvert and Harris (explicitly in his testimony) at the recent Kansas BOE hearings: Because evolution has implications for questions that religion/theology addresses, teaching evolution amounts to science wandering into religion’s turf, and it is therefore appropriate to include a counterbalancing position. IT both tars science with the ‘religion’ brush, and justifies/insulates ID from attack due to its religious underpinnings.

RBH

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 5, column 239, byte 1740 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

I don’t have to defend myself from Casey Luskin. Cranks and liars fail on their own. IDiots have been failing way back to the days when they called themselves creationists. I’m sure Casey was a crank long before he emailed me pretending (or misunderstanding) that ID was purely scientific (or scientific at all), and he will be a crank long after I’m gone.

It is kind of painful, though, to read about Casey in the same thread as Dembski’s Sancho Panza saying things like “The internet will not be the primary means IDists engage their detractors.” Makes my head hurt worse than last night’s Stolichnaya did.

Actually, meteorology IS next

WASHINGTON - Two days before Sen. Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the National Weather Service, his political action committee received a $2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading provider of weather data…

Why not? The arguments are identical, nearly.

Scientist: If the Designer is so intelligent, how do you explain monsoons? ID Meteorologist: Sin! Anyway monsoons can’t form from random, undirected chance processes. Scientist: So how does it happen, according to IDM “theory”? ID M: Naturalistic weather doesn’t happen. Scientist: No, I mean, what does your theory say Does happen? IDM: Not naturalistic weather. Can’t happen. Besides, naturalistic weather would be like a tornado going through a junkyard, and…uh…throwing stuff around.

Luskin writes, “No offense Nick, but you should have contacted me first before assuming you were accurately representing my views.”

And yet, what does he have to say about the following?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inde[…]/archives/26

Spacy Luskin1.


1: For the record, “Spacy” for “Casey” is clever beyond measure.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on May 16, 2005 5:36 PM.

Jellyfish eyes was the previous entry in this blog.

Davison’s Soapbox is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter