1/09/2007

 

The Ideology of Evolution (Pretending to be Science)

And there shall be buttons... and they shall be pushed! (RedNeckoBlogger 12:28:05)

Of all my musings: “Intelligent Design” Creation in New Clothes?” seems to have generated all the heat! Thanx to all commenters (is that a word?... is now!) . Due to the volume of comments I am opening a new blog, that starts with my comment about the late Carl Sagan (who I contend now knows there is a God).

In the 1980 PBS series "Cosmos" with the late Mr. Sagan... he states (talking about origins) that one day in the organic chemical soup of early earth, "Quite by accident" life began... at the time I remember I sat up in my chair and blurted out loud: "He's making a philosophical statement, not a scientific one!"

Most prominent evolutionists, Richard Dawkins comes to mind (currently on a fierce anti-religion tirade), like Sagan, seem to want to wind the philosophy and the (so-called) science of evolution tightly together… thus forming the IDEOLOGY of evolution. This ideology of evolution is no doubt totally hostile to the idea of a creator and is often hostile to science itself, when any research challenges its' dogma (like the work of Michael J. Behe)! The ideology of evolution is INDEED the foundation of all modern atheistic ‘isms... and does not tolerate being questioned! For like other totalitarian ideologies… it tries to outlaw and persecute any alternatives offered. Otherwise, why do courts, lawyers and lawmakers need to be involved in “science” debates?

Any questioning of Darwin (aka: ID) is the new “Dred Scott” in the struggle… in 1857 (Dred Scott v. Sanford), Mr. Scott was declared mere property by the Supreme Court… much as questioning of evolution is declared “not-science”, by (just as misguided) judges today (just declare anything you don’t like “religion” and it’s banned! How convenient!). It took a horrific war to "correct" the grievous Dred Scott errors... and while this ID/Evolution "war" is not near as deadly (yet) as the War Between the States (1861-65), it’s just as passionate! Like the southern plantation owners of the past… most of the current “scientific” community has so much of their self-identity, reputations and resources invested in their ideology, they cannot entertain any challenges that would/could upset their world!

The truth is the ID/Evolution “debate” is much more about the ideology than the science.

Comments:
I highly recommend visiting the Access Research Network website, especially the works of Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box)... his reasoned arguments show most of current evolutionary thinking is ideological not scientific. His article "Darwin's Hostages:
A decision in Kansas to question evolution dogma has given rise to hysteria and intolerance" is long but priceless.
 
Dawkins is a great liberal thinker in my opinion, rather than an evangelical evolutionist (although I imagine he'd hate that label). He believes in evolution because it has been proved to be true, at least its core principles. The essential correctness of evolution is beyond doubt.

And his current 'crusade' is not a premeditated attack on religion, it's a logical reaction to an upswell in fundentalism around the world, but most worryingly the US. When evolution is taught as an 'alternative' to creationism in schools, then everyone ought to be worried. I know I am.
 
"When evolution is taught as an 'alternative' to creationism in schools..."

If the above quote was the case, I'd be a lot less worried!
 
Captain Spank... you are so right! If I were you, I would check for Fundlementalists under my bed! They're everywhere, and they look just like regular people!
 
Of all my musings: “Intelligent Design” Creation in New Clothes?” seems to have generated all the heat!

Well, when you start posting a load of scientific nonsense wherein you attack a scientific theory without even addressing a statement that it makes, much less make a reasoned argument of your own, expect flames.


Due to the volume of comments I am opening a new blog, that starts with my comment about the late Carl Sagan (who I contend now knows there is a God).

You're free to contend all you want. Whether or not a "God" exists and whether or not Sagan is capable of "knowing" this despite no longer having any functional brain cells is totally irrelevant to the subject of evolution.


In the 1980 PBS series "Cosmos" with the late Mr. Sagan... he states (talking about origins) that one day in the organic chemical soup of early earth, "Quite by accident" life began... at the time I remember I sat up in my chair and blurted out loud: "He's making a philosophical statement, not a scientific one!"

No, he's making a speculative statement which is totally irrelevant to the theory of evolution. I'm not sure what relevance it has here, since you're calling this "The Ideology of Evolution" and the ToE doesn't say one word about how the first life forms came to exist or even why they came to exist.


Most prominent evolutionists,

By which you mean "scientists who accept the theory of evolution and are famous for some reason, whether or not it has anything to do with the theory of evolution", right? It's not like Sagan was famous for his research in biology -- he was an astronomer, none of the works for which he was famous had to do with supporting the theory of evolution.


Richard Dawkins comes to mind (currently on a fierce anti-religion tirade),

When is Dawins not on an anti-religion tirade?


like Sagan, seem to want to wind the philosophy and the (so-called) science of evolution tightly together… thus forming the IDEOLOGY of evolution.

Dawkins makes the mistake of assuming that science leads to implications regarding theology, but I'm not aware of Sagan ever doing that. Sagan wasn't a believer to be sure, but I don't recall him ever claiming -- as Dawkins does -- that fundamental theories in science somehow have direct implications regarding the existence and/or nature of any deities. It looks like you're taking Dawkins's habit of talking out of his ass whenever he speaks outside of his field of expertise and applying it -- wrongly -- to any scientists who happens to be nonreligious and accept evolution.


This ideology of evolution is no doubt totally hostile to the idea of a creator

That's Dawkins's premise. He's one of the very few who espouses such a view. Sagan certainly didn't, at least not that I've seen (feel free to quote Sagan on the matter if you feel differently, I'll examine evidence to that effect).


and is often hostile to science itself, when any research challenges its' dogma

First, don't misuse apostrophes. I don't like that. Second, while Dawkins misapplies science to fields where it shouldn't be applied at all (theology), I've never seen him misuse science in approprite fields.


(like the work of Michael J. Behe)!

Michael Behe's work falls apart on its own lack of merit. Even Behe admitted that the definition of science would have to be changed to allow for his research. It's not a very good excuse when you argue that one of the reasons that your work isn't well-accepted is that the field needs to be redefined.


The ideology of evolution is INDEED the foundation of all modern atheistic ‘isms... and does not tolerate being questioned!

Please. Dawkins asserts that findings in science disprove a personal God. That's his problem and he talks out of his ass when doing it, but it's not like any legitimate challenges to the science that he (wrongly) uses to justify his conclusions have ever been offered.


For like other totalitarian ideologies… it tries to outlaw and persecute any alternatives offered.

BWAHAHA! Come, tell me of a field of study that has been "outlawed"


Otherwise, why do courts, lawyers and lawmakers need to be involved in “science” debates?

Because creationists (aka ID-pushers) are attempting to circumvent professional scientific methodology and have their non-science pushed into public school science classrooms in a form of ideological affirmative action. ID doesn't have any professional research behind it, unlike all other fields of science taught in high schools, yet it feels that it is special and deserves an exemption with an entitlement of "equal time" because the people pushing it don't like evolution for whatever reason -- and often haven't even studied it.


Any questioning of Darwin (aka: ID) is the new “Dred Scott” in the struggle…

Oh do stop being so melodramatic.


in 1857 (Dred Scott v. Sanford), Mr. Scott was declared mere property by the Supreme Court…

And I see nothing analagous in the current discussion.


much as questioning of evolution is declared “not-science”,

Because it is not science. Disagree? Then present a "questioning of evolution" that you believe is science. I'll tell you why it isn't or -- in the incredibly unlikely event that you find a genuine example -- I'll apologize for saying otherwise.


by (just as misguided) judges today

Aided in part by testimony from the people on the side of ID that ID does not qualify as "science" (and the school board members perjuring themselves really didn't help the Dover case).


(just declare anything you don’t like “religion” and it’s banned! How convenient!).

No, ID is kept out of science classrooms because it isn't science and because its own proponents admit that it is religion.


It took a horrific war to "correct" the grievous Dred Scott errors...

A case that you haven't demonstrated is even remotely analagous.


and while this ID/Evolution "war" is not near as deadly (yet) as the War Between the States (1861-65), it’s just as passionate!

Indeed. Irrational religious fundamentalists are quite passionate about this subject. I can't imagine any other reason for the direct observations I've made of religious people blatantly lying when discussing the subject and utterly refusing to acknowledge that they might possibly be mistaken about even the basic details of the subject of evolution. I've seen creationists tell me what evolution is and, when I point to a number of sources that show that their definition is wrong, refuse to accept that they are arguing aginst an incorrect definition and thus attacking claims that no one makes. I've seen creationists cite the claim that "Darwin repented on his deathbed" and refuse to accept that it is false even when I present two Creationist sources that discount the claim (of course, said creationist also refused to provide any evidence to support her position). I've seen a creationist claim that a contemporary philosopher has rejected the theory of evolution even when an article to which they were responding explicitly stated that said philosopher accepts the theory (later this same creationist denied making any statements about the philosopher in question at all!). I cannot imagine this level of dishonesty, willful ignorance of reality and total cognative dissonance without some kind of passion involved.


Like the southern plantation owners of the past… most of the current “scientific” community has so much of their self-identity, reputations and resources invested in their ideology, they cannot entertain any challenges that would/could upset their world!

Challenges are "entertained". The problem is that the same "challenges" are repeatedly presented, ad nauseum and then refuted and exposed to be either completely false our founded in faulty premises (and thus be faulty conclusions). Then, in the next discussion, the same people bring up the same refuted "challenges" again and again and again, as though they don't remember their bogus claims being debunked in the previous discussion or they hope that reality has somehow changed since then. It gets tiresome.

If you have a "challenge" to the theory of evolution, present it. I'll take it head-on. I'm not even a biology expert (my field is computer science), and I can poke holes in the majority of creationist arguments that I come across.


The truth is the ID/Evolution “debate” is much more about the ideology than the science.

True, but not how you think. Creationists have an "ideology" that they must be correct, or their entire worldview comes crashing down. This leads them to cling desperately to false statements, no matter how clearly bogus, and to attack valid science out of fear and paranoia.
 
his reasoned arguments show most of current evolutionary thinking is ideological not scientific

No, his reasoning is flawed. He assumes that because he can't imagine how certain structures could come about through natural selection, they must require a "designer". The problem is that explanations for exactly how his various "examples" could come about have already been given. He only considers additive processes, without considering that some organism features could come about through subtractive processes (or he dismisses the possibility without explaining why).
 
Macro-evolution (cross family)is a theory that has never been observed in science. The fossil cupboard is bare... to the point "pop" scientist Stephen Jay Gould had to dream up the outrageous nonsense of "punctuated equilibrium"... in a pathetic attempt to explain the lack of transitional fossil forms.

To quote Mr. Behe:
"When treated with even the mildest skepticism, the mighty Darwinian citadel fades into a Potemkin village. No wonder that the National Academy brooks no discussion of the theory's premises; premises are just about all it's got."

Truth hurts, the emperor is buck naked!
 
Macro-evolution (cross family)is a theory that has never been observed in science.

Odd. I'd heard that "macro-evolution" was cross-species, and now creationists are claiming that it's cross-family. I guess they had to move the goalposts now that cross-species evolution has been observed, instead shifting it to a point that will likely never be observed not because it's impossible but because it requires a timespan longer than any human life.


The fossil cupboard is bare...

Someone hasn't studied the fossil record.


to the point "pop" scientist Stephen Jay Gould had to dream up the outrageous nonsense of "punctuated equilibrium"...

What is nonsensical about it? Please explain why you believe that "punctuated equilibrium" isn't a viable explanation.


in a pathetic attempt to explain the lack of transitional fossil forms.

There are plenty of transitional forms. SJG didn't come up with PE because of a lack of them in general, he came up with it to explain a specific observation regarding one time period.


To quote Mr. Behe:
"When treated with even the mildest skepticism, the mighty Darwinian citadel fades into a Potemkin village. No wonder that the National Academy brooks no discussion of the theory's premises; premises are just about all it's got."


So...do you have an actual argument against the theory, or just rhetoric?


Truth hurts, the emperor is buck naked!

Why can't the creationists here present one single actual argument against evolution? Not content-free rants of "it's ridiculous" and not outright lies like "there are no transitional forms!"?
 
Odd. I'd heard that "macro-evolution" was cross-species...

NO! (strawman) Lions & tigers are considered different species but can breed (Ligers) Horses/donkeys (mules)
However most mules are sterile while Ligers often are fertile (go figure). BUT... tiger/lions/ligers don't breed with donkeys/horses... they eat them... and ligers are still cats and mules are still equines.

"What is nonsensical about it? Please explain why you believe that "punctuated equilibrium" isn't a viable explanation."

Where's the evidence? Punctuated equilibrium is a direct result of Mr. Gould realizing the old Darwinism had failed! So he had to help create Neo-Darwinism. As long as you keep God out of the equation anything is acceptable.

I cannot say it better than Mr. Gould himself:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. (why was this kept secret?) We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." (Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 1977, 86:14.)
 
"Why can't the creationists here present one single actual argument against evolution?"

We all can agree the finches can 'evolve' bigger beaks... but they're still finches.

This crux of the argument is macro-evolution and origins. Take the single cell and its DNA... the numbers are not macro-evolution's friend.

ON MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY:
"The trouble with life (having a random beginning) is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981).

Sir Fred Hoyle was no creationist but he knew the probabilites of "accidental" life (I 'spose he could have discussed it with Mr. Sagan... as long as it wasn't in science class).

Origins are critical... tells us what (and who) we are. Sovereign creations of an intelligent entity or the biggest cosmic joke ever!
 
Jesus! (did I say Jesus?)

How about taking up a collection and buying these creationist folks a lifetime membership in the Flat Earth Society. It might be money well spent. You never know Jesus might even contribute a few bucks too!
 
NO! (strawman) Lions & tigers are considered different species but can breed (Ligers) Horses/donkeys (mules)
However most mules are sterile while Ligers often are fertile (go figure). BUT...


None of that has anything to do with speciation.


tiger/lions/ligers don't breed with donkeys/horses... they eat them... and ligers are still cats and mules are still equines.

Which again is totally irrelevant to speciation. What's your point here?


Where's the evidence?

Evidence for what, exactly?


Punctuated equilibrium is a direct result of Mr. Gould realizing the old Darwinism had failed!

That will come as a surprise to the thousands of biologists currently working in the world.


So he had to help create Neo-Darwinism.

He helped refine the theory of evolution. Are you under the mistaken impression that "Neo-Darwinism" somehow involves different mechanics than "classical Darwinism"?


As long as you keep God out of the equation anything is acceptable.

That is the nature of science. Science cannot address or allow supernatural explanations. Singling out evolution for attack demonstrates either that you are ignorant regarding the fundamental nature of science or you are dishonestly attacking evolution with non-scientific motives.


I cannot say it better than Mr. Gould himself:

An out-of-context quote. This should be good.


"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.

Okay, you've already demonstrated that you're cutting and pasting from creationist sites without doing any fact checking. I've just reproduced two sentences from your quote. Except that the first sentence and the second sentence come from two different sources. To present two sentences made at different times in different context as though they are a single contiguous quote is lying.


We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." (Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 1977, 86:14.)

And this last sentence is also out of context. You've presented three statements that Gould did say, but put them together as though they were part of a single continuous statement. That is fundamentally dishonest.

An examination of the actual context of the first quote from which your dishonest composite quote is constructed can be found here.

An examination of the actual context of the second quote from which the dishonest composite quote is constructed -- an examination that shows that Gould actually sees no problems for evolution in the fossil record -- can be found here.
 
We all can agree the finches can 'evolve' bigger beaks... but they're still finches.

And this is an argument against evolution how?


This crux of the argument is macro-evolution and origins. Take the single cell and its DNA... the numbers are not macro-evolution's friend.

I'm sure that you have a valid foundation for any such "numbers", correct?


ON MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY:

Oh, this should be fun.


"The trouble with life (having a random beginning) is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup"

This is a probability argument against abiogenesis; life emerging where it did not exist before. "Macroevolution" -- and in fact, all of evolution -- says nothing whatsoever regarding abiogenesis. This is a probability argument applied against absolutely nothing that evolution claims. Even if it is valid, it has no implications whatsoever regarding the theory of evolution because the theory does not care how the first life forms emerged.


(Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981).

Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist. I question his credibility on the subject of abiochemistry.


Sir Fred Hoyle was no creationist but he knew the probabilites of "accidental" life (I 'spose he could have discussed it with Mr. Sagan... as long as it wasn't in science class).

Neither Hoyle nor Sagan were biologists, and even if his argument is valid it is meaningless because the theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding life emerging where it did not exist before.


Origins are critical... tells us what (and who) we are.

But abiogenesis has no bearing on the theory of evolution.


Sovereign creations of an intelligent entity or the biggest cosmic joke ever!

Can you justify this dichotomy and show that there are no other possibilities whatsoever?
 
....abiogenesis has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

PLEASE... without abiogenesis, 99% of evolutionists have no reason to exist, it is their preferred supernatural event.
 
Thank you Mr. Anonymous this is from your recommended website:

Quote #3.2
[The lack of transitional fossils represent real gaps]

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.

I don't know how the above differs much from the dishonest out of context quote of my ealier post... but it'll do.
 
PLEASE... without abiogenesis, 99% of evolutionists have no reason to exist,

Please explain how falsifying abiogenesis falsifies the theory of evolution.


it is their preferred supernatural event.

1) Speculations on abiognesis processes (there are several, all still totally hypothetical) does not involve supernatural invocations.

2) It's not a part of the theory of evolution no matter how much you assert that it is "preferred".
 
I don't know how the above differs much from the dishonest out of context quote of my ealier post... but it'll do.

Except that it is also out of context, as the website exposes. In addition to omitting a few key sentences in between the quoted statements, it also neglects to include the final statement:

"For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.
 
I found this quote on whales that in addition to watching a whale documentary on TV, (which asserted much the same thing) led to my question: did they wade in up to their knees for awhile after the decision was made. I thought I’d lost the magazine… maybe God led me to it.

File under: Evolutionists say the darndest things…

National Wildlife Federation Magazine Feb-Mar 1993: "Whale of a Story" p. 9.
This is an actual quote:

"From a creature that walked on land until it discovered the riches of the sea 50 million years ago, the whale has evolved into the world’s largest mammal."

(… until it discovered, Yup folks the land type critter made a conscious decision to evolve and live in the oceans as a whale). Could this ID stuff come from the critters themselves?
 
"From a creature that walked on land until it discovered the riches of the sea 50 million years ago, the whale has evolved into the world’s largest mammal."

(… until it discovered, Yup folks the land type critter made a conscious decision to evolve and live in the oceans as a whale). Could this ID stuff come from the critters themselves?


Thank you for demonstrating that the strongest arguments that ID-pushers (aka creationists) are semantic arguments based upon colourful use of language in layman publication. I'll also note that even if your quoted snippet is taken literally, it still doesn't imply a conscious choice regarding evolution (as evolution would actually be a consequence of "discovering" the sea, not a decision made by the organism beforehand).
 
The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.

My friend you are so right … BUT, ain’t it the damnedest bit of circular reasoning ever stated??? Superman is jealous of such leaps of faith.

For decades evolutionists confidently asserted gradualism...(starting with the ole man himself) when it was proven it tain't happinin’... "modern" Darwinism "evolved". The only hard evidence of evolution is the theory is evolving in a desperate effort to plug its holes... but that's about all. You can always say you were looking for what you found.
 
My friend you are so right … BUT, ain’t it the damnedest bit of circular reasoning ever stated???

Circular? What's circular about it?


For decades evolutionists confidently asserted gradualism...(starting with the ole man himself)

Not all of them, as evident by the fact that a contemporary of Darwin (Huxley, a close friend) suggested otherwise.


when it was proven it tain't happinin’... "modern" Darwinism "evolved".

Hardly. A non-gradualistic approach to evolution was considered back in Darwin's day. It just hasn't been as popular until relatively recently.


The only hard evidence of evolution is the theory is evolving in a desperate effort to plug its holes...

Nice way of dodging the mountains of fossil evidence and recent discoveries in DNA. Just pretend that they aren't there and presto! You've "proven" that the theory is untenable, at least in your own personal paralell universe, even if not in reality.


You can always say you were looking for what you found.

Except that in the case of PE, what we've found is what quite a few people had been predicting in the first place.
 
Nice way of dodging the mountains of fossil evidence and recent discoveries in DNA.

Losta fossils no evidence! DNA discoveries are forcing some of the most tortured and painful speculations and feeble "rebuttals" on how things so complex could happen without design...

Mr. Dawkins himself (Blind Watchmaker) "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Appearance? The eye, ear, hand or wing only appears to have a purpose? ABSURD!

Hmmm... Maybe your right... my computer only appears to have a purpose and was assembled by random processes.
 
Losta fossils no evidence!

Yeah, that's the creationist mantra. Shove their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and shout, "I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING!" Whine "NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS" despite Lucy (which they claim is "proven" to be a chimpanzee without citing any professional researchers who claim as much) and Archaeoptryx.


DNA discoveries are forcing some of the most tortured and painful speculations and feeble "rebuttals" on how things so complex could happen without design...

Mind justifying this non-sequitur? Or did you just throw it out because you don't like the implications of ERV insertion points and wanted to pre-emptively deflect attention away from them?


Mr. Dawkins himself (Blind Watchmaker) "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

It's not a crevo discussion without dishonest, out-of-context quote mining.


Appearance? The eye, ear, hand or wing only appears to have a purpose? ABSURD!

Argument from incredulity. Logical fallacy.


Hmmm... Maybe your right... my computer only appears to have a purpose and was assembled by random processes.

Invalid analogy. Your computer is not an imperfect self-replicator.
 
RE; "illusion of design"

It's not a crevo discussion without dishonest, out-of-context quote mining.

Absolutely in context... I heard him say it himself in a BBC interview! (Unless it was edited out of context by EVIL ID types... who penetrated the BBC.)

So I contend you were mistaken.

Mr. Dawkins concluded his interview by stating natural selection is "sorta" a matter of faith (yep he said it)... because the theory is so "coherent and powerful".

Coherently and powerfully wrong!
 
I know the clip (Dawkins BBC interview). It resides on the Access Research Network website (and I presume other pro ID sites as well). He did say it what is quoted, but the clip is two minutes long. I’m sure the original interview was longer. However, I presume ARN has permission from the BBC to use it.

Resume the Texas death match. Who will be last to post?.
 
The problem with presenting the quote as you did is that ignores Dawkins's point, which is that appearance of design (from a glance) does not necessarily imply design. One of the results of biological science is a demonstration that things that "appear" designed could actually have easily come about without design.


Coherently and powerfully wrong!

Do you have any actual arguments of substance, or are you just going to shout "is not!" over and over again and hope that somehow brings the last 150 years of research of professional biologists crashing down?
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?