Monday, December 08, 2008

How the Gipper "Wins"

 
Over on Uncommon Descent there was a discussion about macroevolution. The new moderator, Barry Arrington, was so impressed with the responses of his fellow IDiots that he draws attention to their comments in today's posting [UD Commenters Win One for the Gipper].
Below the fold I have reproduced an interesting comment thread in which ribczynski attacks ID proponents’ criticisms of macroevolution through NDE, and two ID proponents convincingly refute the Darwinist line.
Let's see how these two IDiots "refute" the Darwinian line by picking out one of the most common falsehoods that are often repeated by those who are completely ignorant of evolution.
gpuccio writes:

First of all there are saltations. Have you ever heard of “punctuated equilibrium”? That’s not an ID theory.

Jerry writes:

Gould said the whole history of the fossil record was one of apparent saltations. That was why he developed his absurd fix for Darwinian processes called punctuated equilibrium. I suggest you read Gould and as suggested by other, his ideas on punctuated equilibrium. Everybody immediately just lapped up his ideas and it is now part of the evolutionary canon.
Punctuated equilbira have absolutely nothing to do with saltations. This particular misunderstanding has been discussed and refuted dozens of times over the past thirty years. The fact that IDiots would use it in 2008 demonstrates something related to the "Gipper" (the Ronald Regan version) but it's not what they think.

Is this the best they can do? Yes, it is.

What's surprising is that the Intelligent Design Creationists are doing so well when they are so stupid.


2 comments:

  1. I think that what happens is that people get confused about "fast" evolution and forget (or just don't get) that there is a difference between speciation occurring in ONE generation and it occurring over a "few thousands" of generations.

    That is a bad enough for anyone, but it is especially pathetic when this misconception is held by someone who considers themselves an "authority" on evolution. :-)

    PS: I am just an interested lay-person and not a professional.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Those are just your basic creationist arguments aren't they? I mean, that's where they get them from, right? From creationist web pages and books and whatnot, right? Shrug!

    ReplyDelete