Tuesday, February 18, 2014

P.Z. Myers' Corrections Keep Rolling In

P.Z. Myers has corrected just about everything in his recent response except for his coprophagia. However, there are still two glaring errors left to fix.

1. P.Z. Myers claims that I am an intelligent design apologist. I am not. In fact I have written refutations of ID theory that date back to my college days. For example, in 2008 I wrote:
“ID theorists are guilty of procedural errors, and the scientific community has already focused on the specific scientific errors…. ID as an intellectual movement has its essence in ontological ambiguity and methodological error.”
2. P.Z. Myers thinks that Jerry Coyne did not make conclusions about David B. Hart's arguments in his book The Experience of God. Instead, Myers says, he made conclusions merely about reviewers of the book, which he had read, rather than Hart, who he had not read.

This too can be disproved by simple quotations. Here's Jerry Coyne, making conclusions about Hart's arguments:
  • "Hart’s god, therefore, is immune to refutation."
  • "Hart’s argument fails in the only way it can be tested."
  • "Hart’s arguments are simply made-up stuff, and even though he’s smart and uses big words, there is no more evidence for his God than there is for the anthropomorphic Gods of Alvin Plantinga, Pat Robertson, and Rick Warren."
  • "People like Hart, despite their intelligence, have no more handle on the nature of God than do Joe and Sally in the street."
But, on second thought, perhaps its best that P.Z. Myers not correct these mistakes. If he did, the only thing left would be his portrayal of his own coprophagia. Better factual errors, perhaps, than his revolting portrayal of his dietary adventures.

2 comments:

Singring said...

'“ID theorists are guilty of procedural errors, and the scientific community has already focused on the specific scientific errors…. ID as an intellectual movement has its essence in ontological ambiguity and methodological error.”'

And yet, despite its 'scientific errors' and 'methodological errors', you have repeatedly and vocally attacked the ruling in the Dover case on this blog.

So you really have to forgive others their confusion when one day you say "ID is full of scientific and methodological errors" and the next day you say "ruling that ID is not scientific, rests on erroneous science and shouldn't be taught in science class is idiotic and false!"

Apparently you are saying that you favour the teaching of scientific errors and methodological errors in schools?!

Not that that is surprising to anyone who knows at what kind of school you teach at and what kind of Creationists you find compelling (e.g. Jay Wile).

But wait...I see what is going on here...

...this is actually a big prank of yours, because of course you have said that you have no scientific expertise to judge even rudimentary things like the age of the earth, so how would you know what constitutes a methodological error and what scientists should be trusted in their judgement of specific scientific errors?

So you're off the hook for anything you've ever written on science thanks to your complete incompetence.

Well-played, Martin...well-played.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I'll address this tonight, but remember this is Thomas' post and he has not made some of the comments I have about scientific issues. And our views are not exactly the same on science.

Just so you know.