posted 02. March 2002 12:08                    

The double irony of Shermer’s gravely defective logic appears to result from his earnestness to enforce rules of science while using rhetorical methods that break the very rules he calls us to keep. (What is it about metaphysics that tempts us to hypocrisy anyway?) For if it is against the rules of science to offer explanations for the existence of purpose in nature, then it is equally against the rules to give explanations for the nonexistence of purpose in nature. Shermer clearly wants it both ways, but only when such duplicity supports his views.

He then turns his metaphysical guns on “intelligent design” (ID), a potential derivative of purpose. But instead of engaging anything, he mocks and shows us Shermer Bytes: There’s nothing to it. ID did it. Class dismissed, while real skeptics like Michael Ruse say William Dembski’s work on ID is too rigorous to be ignored, and while real scientists like Stuart Kauffman indicate that Dembski’s ideas are worth grappling with. Hence, here is one more reason to conclude that Shermer deserves a different title than Skeptic. Not only does he fail to demonstrate true skepticism about the ideas he criticizes (ID in this case), he is also patently unskeptical of his own contradictory views.

posted 02. March 2002 16:20                    

Once again, please note that we are moderating firmly to ensure that discussions don't devolve into the shouting matches that are typical on the internet. This moderation includes a ban on all stereotypes, attacks on character, motive guessing, world views, and anything else this moderator deems detrimental to the discussion.