Leading evolutionist Richard Dawkins has a new book out this fall entitled The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Newsweek is running an excerpt from the book which reveals just how flawed are those evidences. Of course it is merely an excerpt and I will be sure to read the entire book in search of the strongest arguments for evolution. But isn't an excerpt supposed to be a highlight? If so, Dawkins' evidences for evolution must be as weak as those already presented by so many evolutionists. The piece is, however, a highlight of evolutionary thinking.
Dawkins spends much of the piece discussing the fossil evidence. It is true that many species appear abruptly in the fossil record but Dawkins argues that such abruptness is an illusion caused by gaps in the fossil record. For instance, perhaps soft-bodied creatures dominated the landscape during the gap periods. This argument goes back to Darwin and is of course a possibility, but it is not falsifiable. There is no way to disprove this evolution-motivated notion that the overwhelming message of rapid appearance is an illusion.
Dawkins makes several attempts to justify this move but predictably retreats to the evolutionary comfort zone of creation bashing. A Bogey Moment emerges as Dawkins suddenly castigates those “history-deniers” and explains that the failure to find fossils of today’s flatworms justifies the pattern of abruptness in the fossil record because “Creationists believe that flatworms were created in the same week as all other creatures.”
I'm well familiar with the evolution genre but I'm still amazed when I read this stuff. Could this be a spoof? No, the Newsweek piece appears genuine--genuine insanity that is. You cannot make this stuff up.
Evolution has always relied on religious arguments about the failure of creation but here Dawkins’ diatribe against creation takes the art form to new heights. The Cambrian Explosion is not a problem for evolution because otherwise creation would be inconsistent. This is the evidence for evolution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"I'm well familiar with the evolution genre but I'm still amazed when I read this stuff. Could this be a spoof? No, the Newsweek piece appears genuine--genuine insanity that is. You cannot make this stuff up."
ReplyDeletePerhaps, although Cornelius really fails to make a cogent argument here as to exactly what is wrong with Dawkins argument. Except some of the usual and bizarre mutterings about religion of course, which as far as I can tell he has a following of exactly one (himself) who shares such strange ideas.
Of course the final nail in the coffin for evolution would be a well-researched, fully-fleshed out alternative framework that provides a different explanation as offered by the likes of Dawkins. But wait a minute...it doesn't exist...just some arcane mathematical musings on the subject of intelligent design and doodles on topics such as specified complexity.
And apparently nobody in the ID camp even wants to try and speculate, let alone come up with a potentially testable hypothesis on how ID could have produced the Cambrian explosion. I guess they are too busy evolution and Dawkins-bashing to come up with any novel ideas of their own.
"Of course the final nail in the coffin for evolution would be a well-researched, fully-fleshed out alternative framework that provides a different explanation as offered by the likes of Dawkins."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, making it up for Evolutionists work really well so let's have the ID folks do it too. The irony.
"In other words, making it up for Evolutionists work really well so let's have the ID folks do it too. The irony."
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I was trying to say. The intent is that ID needs to start more aggressively pusuing its own research program with an end goal of coming up with a properly fleshed-out alternative framework. As far as I can see nobody in the ID community wishes to do this and usually comes up with a plethora of excuses why this can't be done. After all if ID truly believes they have the "answer" this ought to be achievable, right? Or is ID worried that they won't find anything?
"Or is ID worried that they won't find anything?"
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant. It really isn't necessary. Much research is occurring and each research points out the holes in Evolution. My hope is the facts should speak for themselves and one day, scientists will break the mold and really come up with something that reflect the reality of the science. It will take a long time. The IDs can wait and see what happens.
You'll also have to remember that peer reviewed articles by ID folks are highly controversial and are barely trickling out. "Peer review" is a joke and highly stacked against any contrary viewpoint.
"Irrelevant. It really isn't necessary. Much research is occurring and each research points out the holes in Evolution. My hope is the facts should speak for themselves and one day, scientists will break the mold and really come up with something that reflect the reality of the science. It will take a long time. The IDs can wait and see what happens."
ReplyDeleteWhat research, what facts? Do you mean all the books Dembski publishes? So where does pointing holes in evolution get you ultimately? The question is what are you going to fill those holes with? Some vague ideas about design inferences? That really isn't going to cut it I'm afraid...
"You'll also have to remember that peer reviewed articles by ID folks are highly controversial and are barely trickling out. "Peer review" is a joke and highly stacked against any contrary viewpoint."
OK then, there is nothing to stop ID proponents creating their own journal or posting papers on the web. In fact a journal was started (ISCID) but looks like it hasn't been updated since November 2005! Do you wonder why people like me think that when it comes to presenting new ideas or a new paradigm all that ID really has to offer is just a lot of anti-evolution? Is that going to be sufficient to build a new science?