tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post6468312147773311007..comments2023-09-09T07:28:35.681-04:00Comments on Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist: Discovery Institute Claims VictoryJimpithecushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-60395380015751608902010-05-25T08:14:00.742-04:002010-05-25T08:14:00.742-04:00I suspect that you are correct. In effect, it is ...I suspect that you are correct. In effect, it is not much different from the "appearance of age" argument that some creationists have made. It is absolutely untestable.Jimpithecushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-22454045144512913482010-05-25T00:41:57.368-04:002010-05-25T00:41:57.368-04:00Again, recognizing that one doesn't have the f...Again, recognizing that one doesn't have the full context, I think it's telling that Matheson said "Design will always be an excellent and <i>irrefutable</i> explanation...".<br /><br />I interpret that to suggest that design can't be tested, that it's not refutable because it makes no testable claims beyond "evolution can't do [something]." Having read Matheson and participated on his blog comments on occasion, I very strongly doubt that he was conceding that design is a <i>good</i> explanation.<br /><br />But I'll wait for him to address it.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-76166180889239292362010-05-22T21:33:10.042-04:002010-05-22T21:33:10.042-04:00DI posted the quote and immediate context on thei...DI posted the quote and immediate context <a rel="nofollow">on their website.</a> I watched the debate live. The transcript seems accurate. It is clear that Matheson was struggling to frame an idea and Myer rhetorically blindsided him. Good debating on Meyer's part. <br /><br />In the further exchange posted Meyer observes, I think correctly, "We have a different philosophy of science, which is where the locus of our disagreement probably lies."<br /><br />Matheson then states that "Design will always be an excellent and irrefutable explanation... I’m just saying it doesn’t look designed to me... There’s also nothing wrong with saying, Wow, man, I don’t know."<br /><br />Matheson's argument was nuanced and a scientist talking. Too bad the crowd id not get it. Neither did I until I read the transcript.Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17391006582755355252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-28686094115060559532010-05-22T00:37:21.255-04:002010-05-22T00:37:21.255-04:00I would definitely await Matheson's response b...I would definitely await Matheson's response before assuming anything. Especially considering IDer's history of being less than accurate in how they represent issues already. Should be interesting though.Irenicumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13409091214695782381noreply@blogger.com