Darwin's Head-scratcher
Posted on: June 18, 2013 - 11:19am
Offline
Darwin's Head-scratcher
I need help with this one, people.
I'm a person of letters, not science and my "Fundie Father" sent me this to explain why "we," the heathen brethren, are oh so wrong. Any intelligent retorts to de-bunk this author would be greatly appreciated!!!
Thanks in advance!
http://www.worldmag.com/2013/06/darwin_s_head_scratcher#.Ub3Mr2TEVG8.email
EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!
- Login to post comments
Basic points:
- He complains that evolution doesn't explain the origins of life. Of course it doesn't. That's the purview of abiogenesis. This would be like complaining that evolution doesn't explain gravity or covalent bonds.
- Pretty much the rest of the argument is a big God of the Gaps argument. He picks parts of evolution where we don't have a clear answer, and assumes that if we can't answer the question now, that the answer must be an intelligent creator. I honestly don't know how he could jump from A to C like that, because:
1) There is still a lot of evidence that evolution has happened and is happening. Just because it can't answer every question doesn't mean that all of the other evidence is invalidated. If you don't know the answer to a single question on a 100 question test, you don't get a zero and have your knowledge of the subject invalidated; you get a 99 and all it means is you didn't know the answer to that one question.
2) There is no compelling evidence for an intelligent creator, so why any question left unanswered by evolution suddenly precludes intelligent design is... peculiar, to say the least.
3) Take a look at history. How may times have we thought that something was governed by something supernatural only later to find out its causes are completely natural? We simply didn't have the information at that time. Now, how many times have we thought we understood a naturalistic cause of something only later to prove that it's actually supernatural? Exactly. That is why God of the Gaps is a stupid way to approach things.
That's great that you're dad is a Christian. Of course I'm assuming that he's a Christian. Your father is using poor reasoning however and very poor arguments.
Intelligent Design along with Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God (which are virtually one and the same) is like catching a cab to the airport with 10 pieces of luggage. The cab driver drops you off a mile away from the airport.
It takes off but dosen't get you to your destination.
Logically we understand God not through inductive particulars, but God is self evident to us. Since He is the Infinite Reference Point, All things are because of Him. And since we are distorted but nevertheless the image of God, the Law of God is on our hearts (Romans 2:15).
With this, God is axiomaticallly known. The evide nce a demonstration of the known not a substantiation. His doctrines implications of the Axiom of God's Being.
Starting deductively with The ultimate universal gives merit to lesser universals (e.g. all men die) and finally to the particlars such as you and I which involves are personality as well.
Your dad evidently means well, but is using horribly retarded arguments. And while I would argue that you do indeed know what I say, for some reason, either do to your immoral sin, sniffing the the weed, sex, or by some other means, you allow your weakness of being a slave to your flesh then to think rationally about the subject.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
This is very simple.
"Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge."
In other words he is not remotely qualified to discuss evolution or biology, let alone criticise the science of those subjects. The mere mention of information in regarding DNA demonstrates his ignorance of the subject.
Ask your dad if he'd take health advice from his mechanic over his doctor, because that's exactly what he's doing.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
In fact, evolution is largely driven by copying errors and loss of information. There isn't a single example of evolution creating new information. When someone uses such an argument as this, it is nothing more than a demonstration of ignorance.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
RE :: Hon, you are welcome to join in on this forum's little Minstrel Show
Check out a THREAD -- Refuting an Incredulity Argument | The Rational Response Squad http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32880
{Beyond Saving wrote}
{Dana wrote}
except Jean, of course - has given you some very good discussion. I always recommend Talk Origins for in depth discussions of the various creationist nonsensical claims. Start here, with the index. You can't go wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Thank you everyone for your responses I appreciate it greatly!!!