Re: The status of ID and a personal reflection

On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 02:57:35 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 16:11:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
>

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 12:56:27 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
>

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 23:00:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
>

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:21:45 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
<invalide@invalid.invalid>:
>

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:41:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
 

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:24:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

As I said, "This post is not an opportunity to dive down the hundred
rabbit holes that this overview touches on." The micro/macro question is
_the_ evolution debate.

>
Simply clarifying whether you accept that humans are members of the
ape family, all evolved from a common ancestor, or whether you think
humans were created separately as a standalone species doesn't involve
any rabbit holes.
>

Of course it doesn't. If this discussion were a football
game (US type), he'd be a star receiver; he can weave and
dodge with the best of them.
 
(Still waiting for that info regarding the "Increased
traction" for ID...)

>
>
Here it is:
>

Yeah, that was my take, too:
>
1) Assert.
2) When asked for evidence, ignore or waffle.
3) Reassert.
>
Lather, rinse, repeat.

>

>
He kinda tried to move away from that (without actually retracting it)
by starting a new thread  "Observe the trend. It's happening. Give it
time."
>
In that new thread, however, he basically just regurgitated previous
claims and a couple of new references [1] about the shortfalls in
current scientific knowledge. He didn't give anything that supports an
increase in support for ID.
>

I did see that waffling, but jillery says he "clarified" his
original claim by restricting it to refer to the general
population.

>
>
*******************************************
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 22:43:05 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>

ID is described as "a pseudoscientific argument" on Wikipedia [1],
there's clearly no love for it here, and as far as I know ID has limited
recognition within mainstream science. The general public's awareness
and support of ID I believe is higher but still constrained.

*********************************************
>

Thanks for the repost; as I said, I missed it.

If he intended that to be evidence for his claim of
"increased traction" for ID, IMHO it failed miserably.

>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov