You'd better sit down before I tell you this. Over on Uncommon Descent Denyse O'Leary has just posted an article complaining about evolution, as Intelligent Design Creationists tend to do1 [Today at Design of Life: The Avalon explosion: Another intricate, Darwin-busting puzzle].
But she really blows it in the first sentence when she accidentally gets something right, suggesting that she is finally beginning to understand what we've been telling her for years.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, the history of life shows no steady Darwinian march of progress ...Congratulations, Denyse. You finally understand that there's no progress in evolution. There's no purpose either.
1. They think that criticism of evolution is the same as promoting Intelligent Design Creationism—but then, that's why we call them IDiots.
6 comments :
" They think that criticism of evolution is the same as promoting Intelligent Design Creationism—but then, that's why we call them IDiots."
Larry are you saying that criticizing evolution is not the same as promotiong ID ?
mats asks,
Larry are you saying that criticizing evolution is not the same as promotiong ID ?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
I criticize evolution all the time but I don't promote Intelligent Design Creationism.
mats,
There are at least two non-evolution and non-ID answers to the question, "After life's origin, what gave rise to the varieties of living things we see around us?"
The first is what might be called the "literalist" flavor of creationism.
ID says the varieties of living things we see around us could not have evolved. Since the all-knowing, all-powerful Biblical God could perfectly well have used evolution to give rise to the varieties of living things, to believe ID is to deny the possibility of the Biblical God. Christian groups that favor a "literalist" interpretation of the Bible have criticized ID on this ground.
The other alternative, and perhaps the most honest one for those who don't know a great deal about evolution, is simply "I don't know." :-)
Dear ol' Denyse. She dislikes mindless "Jesus-hollerin'" (for some of the same reasons as we do), but all the while her own output is much the same type of repetitive, clueless non-argument.
No Progress. No Purpose. And no Particularism of humans.
Hey, that leads in to the usual answer to Denyse's blather: "pppbth!"
Larry are you saying that criticizing evolution is not the same as promotiong ID ?
And that's why we call Mats a (small font) IDiot.
I doubt "improvement by criticism" or "rejection by testing" goes over any better than "adaption by selection". For an IDiot, the simplest processes are magic.
Just wondering. Is she saying that extinctions may be actions of the Designer, jsut because we don not always know why they happened?
Post a Comment