Aineo wrote:Sure, I will spell out why I used the word hyporisy.
[*] Joe Meert refuses to address the science of ID scientists because they have not been published in scienific journals.
[*] Joe Meert and the others call ID science psuedoscience.
[*] Joe Meert and the others admit they have not read the science of ID scientists, yet label their science psuedoscience based on point 1.

JM: Umm, if they haven't published their 'science' in science journals, then how can it be hypocritical to not read material that does not exist? Statements 1 and 3 make absolutely NO sense. Number 2 is not hypocritical, it is merely a statement of opinion.


[*] Joe Meert and the others oppose ID because of its supposed socio-political agenda.

JM: Again not hypocritical it is a statement of opinion.


[*] Joe Meert and the others ignore the fact that Darwin, Lyell, and Huxley had a socio-political agenda.

JM: Not hypocritical because I have never stated whether or not I thought any of these people had a socio-political agenda.

[*] Joe Meert and others change the meaning of "evolution" at their convenience.

JM: I've never once changed my definition of evolution.


[*] Joe Meert and others are using non-scientific sources to denegrate a movement they admit they have not read.

JM: I'm using statements made by ID people directly. If you say they are non-scientific sources, I agree 100%.

[*] ID is not a "science"; ID is a method of approaching science in the same manner that all scientists approach science.

JM: Nope, by your own admission (and Paul Nelson) ID is not yet scientific because they do not engage in scientific discourse. It's not hypocritical to state facts in evidence.

In other words Joe Meert and his cohorts have hit this board to denigrate the science of men without any intention of discussing science; there only goal is to disparage the socio-political basis of ID.

JM: Nope, I've said nothig bad about the science of any of the people you listed. I've simply agreed with your premise that they have not published ID in the scientific literature. Based on some of their credentials, their science is quite good. However, their science is NOT ID.

JM: Lastly, I've read plenty of material written by ID'ists. It's just that none of it is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In fact, most of the material is just an attack on evolution rather than any rigorous development of ID as a viable alternative. As I mentioned before (and you conveniently ignore), ID is not dead in the water yet. ID'ists actually have to propose something in the normal scientific venues and quit fighting their battles in courts and school board meetings. Why not try and focus on meaningful discussion instead of incorrectly labeling me a hypocrite? Then again, if labeling me a hypocrite makes you feel better about your points, then go ahead but let's try to focus on a meaningful discussion. It seems that we can bang heads forever on non-existent scientific literature from the ID'ists (remember YOU told me that they had not published in the scientific literature....although I already knew that)

Cheers

Joe Meert