Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thomas Risher – He Gets It

arroba Email

Thomas Risher of Prattville, Alabama writes in the Montgomery Advertiser

Intelligent Design mischaracterized

Palmer was incomprehensible. I read it three times and still can't figure out what he was struggling to say. DaveScot
What have I said about Palmer that is inaccurate? That it's feeble? That it's tired and worn? That Darwinism is relgious dogma? That YOUR statement, "Richard Palmer of Edmonton, Alberta certainly gets it:" is dishonest? It was dishonest of you to assert that Mr. Palmer "gets it" in the same way as Thomas Risher of Prattville, Alabama gets it. It was a misleading statement in the context. To introduce Mr. Palmer honestly, you would have said something like, "Here is an alternate (or contrary or opposing) view from someone who doesn't agree." You were dishonest in the context. Red Reader
I've e-mailed to admin(at)this websites url Hope it got to you guys. --------- Seems like Palmer has a problem with dealing with issues in a scholarly manner in general. According to this site (http://evol.mcmaster.ca/~brian/netevoldir/Other/Symmetry.response):
If A. R. Palmer had a saintly or godly behavior that made him a superior of others, I might be able to understand his ways. However, that appears not to be the case. When Palmer wrote a piece for the newsletter of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology a couple of years ago, the president of the society, Prof. N. B. Davies, wrote in the subsequent issue that all future contributions to the newsletter would be required to reach certain minimum standards in terms of normal collegial behavior.
Of course, his statement speaks for itself- it's childish. It's the same sort of immature attitude that gives us the FSM nonsense. Scientists who refuse to deal with scientific problems, entrenched so deeply in dogma that they can't help but act like children sometimes. jboze3131
Woctor: Feeble. Palmer DOESN'T get it. Sir: THIS is not argument; this is demagogury I suggest that ID could be presented as an alternative so long as it is always accompanied by a third option: intelligent deception. Namecalling and character aspersion does NOT count as intelligent debate; This hypothesis proposes that the ID movement is motivated by an 'intelligent deceiver'. This is tired and worn: Individuals who understand how to debate alternative scientific hypotheses would never intentionally promote religious dogma as science. First off, ID does not promote "religious dogma" as science. If anyone does, it is Darwinists who promote--without proof--that life arises from non-life, that intelligence is the result of blind accident, that the majastic and subline Mother Nature, the blind watchmaker is the Creator of the Universe. This view is religious (based on faith) and dogmatic (intollerant of evidence to the contrary). What part of any statement by Mr. Palmer is "valid scientific debate"? So an intelligent deceiver must be at work, guiding proponents of ID to sow confusion over valid scientific debate. Mr. Palmer's imaginations are pitiful and juvenile. Please post again when you have ANYthing useful to contribute. Red Reader
I think I "get it" too: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com At this point in time I think it is safe to say that what IDists want is to be able to conduct (scientific) research and reach a design inference if that is what the data affords. Joseph

Leave a Reply