DaveScot’s Unsolved Murder

Over at Uncommon Descent, DaveScot has given what must be an overwhelmingly satisfactory reply to the point I made about “Intelligent Design Criminology“, since all of the comments have been favorable and none critical.

Oh that’s right, they just ban their critics. That must be the sort of stifling of opposing viewpoints this new movie Expelled will be about…

[If your sarcasm detector was not activated while reading this post, please activate it now and begin again at the top. Thank you.]

More seriously, DaveScot’s response is so utterly off target as to raise the question whether he is deliberately obfuscating. He admits that the trail has not gone cold as far as scientific exploration of evolution is concerned. He tries to make an analogy with claiming a person was killed by accident that actually hurts his point, for several reasons. First, in many cases, even where murder might seem likely, ‘accidental death’ is considered if there are other reasons for doing so, such as there being no explanation how any other person could have entered the room, for instance. Murder investigations occasionally lead to the conclusion ‘bizarre accident’; they never lead us to supernatural or extraterrestrial murders, nor should they. Criminology, like most sciences and other disciplines that involve critical investigation, deals with matters as far as the surprising natural. It doesn’t go further. Second, science is not committed to the view that life was an “accident”. That is certainly possible, but it is also possible that the production of organic molecules and their eventual synthesis into living things is fundamentally rooted in the basic laws and functioning of the universe. If so, then this cannot be called an “accident” any more than rain can. We usually don’t call rain an accident, because it occurs regularly and naturally according to explicable processes.

At least he was honest enough to say “the illusion of design hasn’t gone away.” Give him credit when he gets it right.

At any rate, DaveScot thinks he has solved the murder case. That’s just because the trial (and any ‘trial’ at Uncommon Descent) is rigged, since the lawyers for the other side are not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses.

Dare I note as well that the folks at Uncommon Descent still seem not to be getting any better at attributing the things they quote and materials they use to their rightful sources?

"Laws are about power. The WASP conservative establishment presents America as a country blessed by ..."

Woe To Those Who Make Unjust ..."
"Thanks for a quick and careful reply. What I was reacting to was your statement ..."

Resurrection, Rumors, and Romania
"I’m not sure what you think my view is, but let me articulate it myself ..."

Resurrection, Rumors, and Romania
"So let me get this straight. Secondary sources relayed details of the story that were ..."

Resurrection, Rumors, and Romania

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Is there a “not” (or a knot, or naught) missing from the last sentence in this post?

  • Thanks Iyov for catching the mistake!

  • Professor McGrath,We don’t ban critics for being contrary. We ban them for ignorance, obstinance, and/or incivility but never for thoughtful criticism.I edited my unsolved murder post to include a link to your response and also invited you to personally participate if you follow our rules of decorum which I also included a link to. We always reserve the right to excommunicate any commenters who we feel aren’t participating in a constructive manner. Uncommon Descent isn’t a public soapbox. The cacophony that results from no discrimination in who is invited to comment is unacceptable to us.

  • Thanks for taking the time to comment, Dave (or do you prefer the full DaveScot, since it seems to be one word?). I was never told when I was banned from Uncommon Descent that I was ignorant, obstinate or guilty of incivility. My guess is that ‘obstinacy’ over there is defined in terms of someone who, after repeated exposure, cannot see the utter brilliance and persuasiveness of the ID position. I certainly will not contest that I belong in the latter category.Thank you for the link and invitation over on Uncommon Descent. It would be nice if the original post of mine that you said someone quoted on a private forum were cited as the source of the words you quoted in your own post. The address is http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/03/intelligent-design-criminology.html.

  • Professor Mcgrath,I agree with you conclusion concerning the banning habits over at UD. If you make too many comments that do not agree with ID or criticize flawed reasoning, and misrepresenting of quotes, to name a few, you are banned. I’ve seen some of the most intelligent, well educated people post at UD and make very valid points, only to be kick to the curb since it goes against what they already believe to be true at UD. There are many sites that are Pro-creationism/ID or Pro-Evo I’ve posted at and it takes a lot to get banned from, no matter what your opinions are. Even Ray comfort, the evangelical creationist, shows more respect to those who criticize his comments. Creationist/IDists at UD say they want to be heard in the scientific community but thats it, they want to be heard but don’t want the criticism that comes along with participating in the community. They want a one way conversation where they can preach their conclusions and belief with any interruption or conflicting opinions. Word is Bond!~Atomic Chimp

  • Oops, I can never type fast enough to keep up with my thoughts. I meant to say, “They want a one way conversation where they can preach their conclusions and belief WITHOUT any interruption or conflicting opinions.”Word is Bond!~Atomic Chimp

  • xcdesignproponentsists

    DaveScot’s claim is false. I was banned from the Uncommon Descent boarding for criticizing another poster’s arguments based on Behe’s latest book (which I hadn’t read). I was “Expelled” for questioning them. No intelligent discourse allowed on Dembski’s blog.