Could it be, he suggests, that we become “weighted down by misleading familiarity?” He blames the philosophy of essentialism, that of Aristotle and Plato, which asserts that categories are distinct, with clear demarcation between them. The great magic of evolution, he notes, is the manner in which one thing, so very slowly, can become another. Given time, a cell can become an eye, or an elephant, or a man.
Why of course a cell can become an eye, or an elephant, or a man. Isn’t that obvious? And the failure of evolutionists to explain how this actually happens is OK because the problem is too complicated.
You can’t make this stuff up. Here we have a leading evolutionist confused about why intelligent adults don’t march off into the sea with him. Isn’t it obvious that a single cell spontaneously transforms into an elephant?
Professor Dawkins’ atheism is central to his fervency. This should not be a distraction.
Not only is Dawkins’ atheism not a distraction, it is not relevant. For when it comes to evolution (and probably everything else), Dawkins is driven by his theism, not his atheism.
Dawkins’ convictions are not that evolution must be true because god does not exist. Rather, Dawkins’ convictions are that evolution must be true because god never would have designed this world. Like atheists everywhere, Dawkins does not believe in god, but he sure does believe about god, and that’s just as metaphysical.
Dawkins argues that biological structures, such as our eye and the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve would not have been intended by anyone otherwise capable of creating the world.
“No intelligent designer,” he assures the reader, “would ever have done that.”
That, of course, is not a scientific claim. Richard Dawkins is driven by his metaphysics which he then proceeds to deny.
If evolutionists are correct that no intelligent designer would ever have done that, then, yes, evolution (in one form or another) is a no-brainer. Their claim that evolution is a fact would be secure.
But all of this rests on their non scientific premise. Without the premise, all we are left with is the ludicrous, junk science that cells spontanously transform into elephants.
If evolutionists are correct that no intelligent designer would ever have done that, then, yes, evolution (in one form or another) is a no-brainer. Their claim that evolution is a fact would be secure.
ReplyDeleteSadly, if an intelligent designer were drunk, or a member of a committee, or not too bright, he/she/it could have done anything, and none of us would be the wiser.
Imaginary designers are a dime a dozen, and their capabilities and motivations are inscrutable.
On the other hand, if the Designer is Jesus, then we would expect PERFECTION.
ReplyDeleteCornelius hunter said...
ReplyDeleteIsn’t it obvious that a single cell spontaneously transforms into an elephant?
No, it's not intuitively obvious at all. However, many things in science are non-intuitive. If one studies the huge amounts of evidence from geology, paleontology, genetics, etc. AND one is intellectually honest, the evolutionary history can clearly be seen.
Most Creationists don't do either part.
"AND one is intellectually honest, the evolutionary history can clearly be seen. Most Creationists don't do either part."
ReplyDeleteSo, you've spoken to "most creationists", or are you resorting to a Hasty Generalization with your Straw Man argument? Not very intellectually honest of you.
"On the other hand, if the Designer is Jesus, then we would expect PERFECTION."
Why? Where is it written that the Creator of the Universe has to do things the way the created beings demand? "Here, God! Here, God! Jump through hoops! Please me! Write, 'I am here' in flaming letters in the sky so I can pretend there's ANY other explanation than God!"
Am I about right in my summary of atheistic evolutionists' demands? It certainly fits my experience.
Piltdown Superman said...
ReplyDelete"AND one is intellectually honest, the evolutionary history can clearly be seen. Most Creationists don't do either part."
So, you've spoken to "most creationists", or are you resorting to a Hasty Generalization with your Straw Man argument? Not very intellectually honest of you.
I'm referring to the hundreds I've personally engaged and/or read over the years, which seems to be a pretty representative sample. Only a handful have had even the most rudimentary understanding of the sciences they're attacking, and fewer yet (Kurt Wise comes to mind) have the intellectual honesty to admit all the physical evidence directly contradicts their Creationist position.
"...have the intellectual honesty to admit all the physical evidence directly contradicts their Creationist position."
ReplyDeleteGenetic fallacy noted.
So, your bias is that uniformitarian materialistic naturalism is RIGHT by default. Try this on for size: I have met very few evolutionists who have the intellectual honesty to admit that their belief system and presuppositions are flawed, and that the physical evidence directly contradicts the fundamentalist evolutionist position.
Piltdown Superman said...
ReplyDelete"...have the intellectual honesty to admit all the physical evidence directly contradicts their Creationist position."
Genetic fallacy noted.
So, your bias is that uniformitarian materialistic naturalism is RIGHT by default.
No, I accept that it's right because it works. It's been empirically verified millions of times in the last 150 years.
You know of any verified cases of non-material supernaturalism?
Try this on for size: I have met very few evolutionists who have the intellectual honesty to admit that their belief system and presuppositions are flawed, and that the physical evidence directly contradicts the fundamentalist evolutionist position.
Big difference is, I can and have provided empirically measured and tested physical evidence that simply cannot be explained in a YEC scenario. What do you have?
"What do you have?"
ReplyDeleteYour claim and your horrendous bias. I guess YOU are the only one that can substantively demonstrate goo-to-you evolution, huh?
Piltdown Superman said...
ReplyDelete"What do you have?"
Your claim and your horrendous bias.
OK, so you have no evidence for your 'supernatural' world. Got it.
I guess YOU are the only one that can substantively demonstrate goo-to-you evolution, huh?
Of course not only me. Any competent science who works in the fields of evolutionary biology/genetics can show you positive evidence for the theory of evolution. There's way too much evidence to ever post more than a minute smattering of it on this small blog but I can certainly direct you to it. There are hundreds of top-line colleges and universities in the world that offer undergrad and graduate degrees in it. There are hundreds of scientific journal that publish new evidence weekly. There are giant museums like the American Museum of Natural History that are filled with it. There are also hundreds of successful biotech companies and labs that use the evolution paradigm to produce products and make profits.
So I'll ask again Mr. Superman,
what do you have?
“No intelligent designer,” he assures the reader, “would ever have done that.”
ReplyDelete"That, of course, is not a scientific claim. Richard Dawkins is driven by his metaphysics which he then proceeds to deny."
So if there turns out to really be an intelligent designer and that designer turns out to be a space alien, is Dawkins still talking metaphysics or is he just making a statement on the expected behavior of an intelligent designer?
Fact is, it's only metaphysics if you think the Intelligent Designer is God. ID tries to tell us they're not talking about God, but your rhetoric give you away.
"Bias" Any opinion or fact that disagrees with me.
ReplyDeleteThe ID Dictionary.
Genetic Fallacy: Any statement made about a group if the person making that statement hasn't interviewed every single member of that group. Example: "Republicans claim to favor small government"
ReplyDeleteThe ID Dictionary
Where is it written that the Creator of the Universe has to do things the way the created beings demand? "Here, God! Here, God! Jump through hoops! Please me! Write, 'I am here' in flaming letters in the sky so I can pretend there's ANY other explanation than God!"
ReplyDeleteThat would be a start...
By golly, isn't Dawkins committing child abuse by teaching atheism to children???
ReplyDeleteDawkins Shmawkins.
ReplyDeleteHere are two chatbots talking about God
You can learn more from them than from Dawkins.
At the top of the mountain of evidence for evolution is all the examples of evolution that we observe today, finch beaks, larger tomatoes, etc. However, the examples of evolution we observe today are bounded and do not accumulate to big changes. Evolutionists, however, assure us that the small changes that took place a million years ago did add up.
ReplyDeleteEvolutionary theory is like going to the Grand Canyon and meeting a group of Olympic athletes viewing the canyon below. You don't see their vehicle, so you inquire as to how they got here.
With excitement they tell how they jumped here from across the opposite side of the canyon. With skeptism you further inquirer how that was possible. They explain that they are long jumpers and they jumped gradually across the middle of the canyon. You turn away towards the canyon and view the one mile deep canyon, cliffs, and the Colorado river winding deep within the canyon below. You further question them and they begin to joke about your intelligence. Then with excitement they begin to demonstrate how far they can jump in the parking lot next to you. They end with a flourish of "see, we told you so" comments. You point out how these jumps don't prove the grand claim of jumping across the canyon. They begin to argue with you about being too picky about wanting ALL the details. Then they assure you that even though they won't demonstrate how they jumped across the canyon now, they did so just before you arrived. They begin to call you names as you leave unconvinced.
Evolutionists, however, assure us that the small changes that took place a million years ago did add up.
ReplyDeleteHow old is planet Earth, Tedford?
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteWith excitement they tell how they jumped here from across the opposite side of the canyon. With skeptism you further inquirer how that was possible. They explain that they are long jumpers and they jumped gradually across the middle of the canyon. You turn away towards the canyon and view the one mile deep canyon, cliffs, and the Colorado river winding deep within the canyon below. You further question them and they begin to joke about your intelligence. Then with excitement they begin to demonstrate how far they can jump in the parking lot next to you. They end with a flourish of "see, we told you so" comments. You point out how these jumps don't prove the grand claim of jumping across the canyon. They begin to argue with you about being too picky about wanting ALL the details. Then they assure you that even though they won't demonstrate how they jumped across the canyon now, they did so just before you arrived. They begin to call you names as you leave unconvinced.
Tedford the idiot gets it totally wrong again.
A better analogy is that the athletes tell you how they jumped in 6' increments down a hiking path from one rim of the canyon, to the canyon floor, then back up another path on the other side. They show you a map with the paths they took. It doesn't have every single step listed but it shows the whole route is easy to traverse given enough time.
Tedford the idiot demands to see evidence that they jumped directly from one rim to the other. They try to explain that's not the route they took but fathead Tedford is so intent on listening to his own bellowing voice he can't hear anyone else.
Pedantski is funny
ReplyDelete"Please me! Write, 'I am here' in flaming letters in the sky so I can pretend there's ANY other explanation than God!"
That would be a start... "
Wouldn't it?
So you want Creator of no less than the Universe to be an acrobat flyer and your entertainer.
The argument from bad design is ultimately not an argument against ID but against the existence of God as the argument from design is not an argument for ID but for the existence of God.
ReplyDeleteAfterall we live in the best of all possible worlds, a consequence of the benevolence of God. That means that the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve is the best possible by definition. Either you belief that than you are a Christian or you don't then you are an atheist.
Neal said: "They begin to argue with you about being too picky about wanting ALL the details."
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of details available for anyone who actually wants to see them, and many scientists are working on finding, understanding, and explaining the remaining details.
What details do you have for your position, and what are you ID pushers working on to find, understand, and explain the remaining details?