DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Blaxastij** · 04-25-2011, 05:22 PM

I can't reply to every single post, but I'll make a few brief points. If you can't answer teleology scientifically, Darwinism is not scientific because it makes specific claims about the topic.

Since "Darwinism" is ideology and not sound science, I'll highlight which arguments can be thrown out by the use of misdefined inflated language. This is the equivalent of attempting to use evidence gained by torture in a civilized courtroom setting--you'll get laughed out of the trial and the defendant will always win.
But teleology is not empirical? Archeology, forensics, and other disciplines rely on infering intelligent agency. And dare I say it, it isn't like Darwinism is based on empirical science. It's a historical science. Has anyone shown that mutations can build any sort of life from the ground up in a step-wise fashion? Not even remotely close. You can't rerun biological history. And that isn't a slam against Darwinism. It's just the nature of the beast.

And it is the Darwinists who can't distinguish between the answers and questions regarding teleology and the implication of those answers. If the implications of an answer gives support to religion, then the whole enterprise is religious. Not really. But in my experience, most Darwinists can't do philosophy well at all. This leaves me with:
But teleology is not empirical? Archeology, forensics, and other disciplines rely on infering intelligent agency. "Archeology, forensics, and other disciplines rely on inferring intelligent agency" because we know who the intelligent agent is. It's people. You can't claim an intelligent agent without claiming empirical evidence--there's that phrase again--of exactly who the intelligent agent is. Teleology attempts to claim an intelligent agent without empirically--observationally--confirming the existence thereof. It is not on the same plane as "archeology, forensics, and other disciplines" because unless you can observationally confirm which agent was active in the creation process you can't claim intelligent agency. This argument, which, again, due to your insistence on using terminology that unsound, unscientific, rhetorical, and inflammatory (weren't you the one claiming to have a philosophy degree, too? You should know how important using the right language is) is the only remotely valid counterclaim you actually fielded, is false. It's the logical equivalent of saying one and one equal sheep. It's bogus. I'll say it again. This argument is bogus.

04-25-2011, 05:22 PM	#14
Blaxastij Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 507 Senior Member	I can't reply to every single post, but I'll make a few brief points. If you can't answer teleology scientifically, Darwinism is not scientific because it makes specific claims about the topic. Since "Darwinism" is ideology and not sound science, I'll highlight which arguments can be thrown out by the use of misdefined inflated language. This is the equivalent of attempting to use evidence gained by torture in a civilized courtroom setting--you'll get laughed out of the trial and the defendant will always win. But teleology is not empirical? Archeology, forensics, and other disciplines rely on infering intelligent agency. And dare I say it, it isn't like Darwinism is based on empirical science. It's a historical science. Has anyone shown that mutations can build any sort of life from the ground up in a step-wise fashion? Not even remotely close. You can't rerun biological history. And that isn't a slam against Darwinism. It's just the nature of the beast. And it is the Darwinists who can't distinguish between the answers and questions regarding teleology and the implication of those answers. If the implications of an answer gives support to religion, then the whole enterprise is religious. Not really. But in my experience, most Darwinists can't do philosophy well at all. This leaves me with: But teleology is not empirical? Archeology, forensics, and other disciplines rely on infering intelligent agency. "Archeology, forensics, and other disciplines rely on inferring intelligent agency" because we know who the intelligent agent is. It's people. You can't claim an intelligent agent without claiming empirical evidence--there's that phrase again--of exactly who the intelligent agent is. Teleology attempts to claim an intelligent agent without empirically--observationally--confirming the existence thereof. It is not on the same plane as "archeology, forensics, and other disciplines" because unless you can observationally confirm which agent was active in the creation process you can't claim intelligent agency. This argument, which, again, due to your insistence on using terminology that unsound, unscientific, rhetorical, and inflammatory (weren't you the one claiming to have a philosophy degree, too? You should know how important using the right language is) is the only remotely valid counterclaim you actually fielded, is false. It's the logical equivalent of saying one and one equal sheep. It's bogus. I'll say it again. This argument is bogus.
	Quote