On Telic Thoughts, Salvador makes the following (self defeating) comment, in response to the statement by David Schweingruber that:
David Schweingruber wrote:
So Iowa State has one thing in common with unaccredited Bible colleges and medieval heresy tribunals – our Bible scholars think they can tell our astronomers how to do their jobs.
And now Sal
Ouch! That’s about good a slam down as I’ve ever seen!
I guess this means we can safely reject the comments and objections from ID creationists like Meyer on for instance the Cambrian. After all Meyer has degrees in physics, geology and the History and Philosophy of Science. Should we now let physicists or geologists decide how biologists do their job?
Or what about Dembski, who holds degrees in philosophy, psychology, theology and mathematics? Why should we take him serious on issues of human evolution for instance? You get the point I hope.
Of course [the reality is that science did not reject their comments because of their background] their arguments were rejected on scientific terms and shown to be mostly scientifically vacuous, irrelevant or plain out wrong. At least David Schweingruber got one thing right namely that contrary to the claims by Gonzalez, Gonzalez was not the target of the petition.
I suggest discerning followers of the Iowa State Intelligent Design controversy actually read the anti-Intelligent Design petition in question. The petition doesn’t even mention Guillermo Gonzalez, who, according to many media accounts, is the target.
Strangely enough Sal seems to forget about the rebuttals by Patterson of the work by Gonzalez.
Patterson, who has written a review of the book and will present a scientific critique of it and intelligent design on Thursday, said he enjoyed “The Privileged Planet.”
“The book is rich with good science in it,” he said.
But, he said, the intentions of many intelligent design theorists were clear.
“It is a religious apologetic disguised as science,” he said.
Not to mention the in depth rebuttals presented here on Panda’s Thumb.
Or the arguments presented by Del Ratzsch. One does not have to be an astrophysicist to recognize the fundamental flaws in the “logic”.
What he and Richards argue in the book and Ratzsch will say Tuesday is that categorically eliminating those explanations is a mistake.
Let me point out that David Schweingruber’s ‘argument’ is missing the point as Avalos is not telling astronomers how to do their jobs. Avalos is merely pointing out that Gonzalez et al’s thesis conclusions are based on flawed logic although the science may be overall quite enjoyable.
Thus when Schweingruber comments
“What is Avalos’ objection to Gonzalez’s work? He told The Des Moines Register that knows Intelligent Design is religion and not science because, “I’m a biblical scholar”.
he fails to represent Avalos’s argument accurately. But Schweingruber also undermines his own argument, namely that sociologists should not be telling theologists how to do their job either.