2 August 2011
“Evolution” is a Political Controversy? (Or, am I Living in an Alternate Multiverse?)
GilDodgen
Here we read: Alan Rogers addresses the political controversy over the theory of evolution…
The comment about “a political controversy” inspired the following.
First of all, the theory of evolution (whatever that means) is so plastic, so poorly defined, and so perfectly designed to be amenable to any subjective or a priori interpretation that it is essentially vacuous as a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory. It is also cleverly designed to be impervious to negation or even challenge, due to its infinite logical and evidential plasticity.
It’s not a political controversy. It is:
1) An evidential controversy (for example, the fossil record, especially the Cambrian explosion).
2) A logical and computational controversy (the insufficiency of random errors producing highly complex, functionally integrated, self-correcting computer code).
3) A mathematical controversy (clearly insufficient probabilistic resources for anything but the most trivial changes based on Darwinian mechanisms).
Politics have nothing to do with any of this. It’s just basic reason, logic, and evidence.
If “evolution” means that living things have changed over time, and they share many characteristics and DNA code, but we don’t have any idea how this could have happened without some kind of intelligent design — then count me as an evolutionist.
Otherwise, Alan Rogers, don’t try to con me with transparent BS. I’m not stupid or poorly educated.
Move along to another potential victim.
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Cambrian "explosion" took many millions of years. It was originally called an "explosion" because research and information about it were limited at that time and it appeared that many species arose very quickly (geologically speaking). It is now usually called the Cambrian radiation.
2. Biological entities are not computers and do not contain "computer code".
3. The "probabilistic resources" crap is based on made up numbers that mean absolutely nothing.
gildo, you're an uneducated dolt, with useless, outdated, already refuted arguments. And it's you IDiots who make evolution vs ID/creation/religion into a political controversy.
Oh, and you might want to use some "basic reason and logic" instead of preaching and promoting religious fairy tales, and you really ought to get some actual "evidence" before you open your mouth.
“Evolution” is a Political Controversy? (Or, am I Living in an Alternate Multiverse?)
GilDodgen
Here we read: Alan Rogers addresses the political controversy over the theory of evolution…
The comment about “a political controversy” inspired the following.
First of all, the theory of evolution (whatever that means) is so plastic, so poorly defined, and so perfectly designed to be amenable to any subjective or a priori interpretation that it is essentially vacuous as a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory. It is also cleverly designed to be impervious to negation or even challenge, due to its infinite logical and evidential plasticity.
It’s not a political controversy. It is:
1) An evidential controversy (for example, the fossil record, especially the Cambrian explosion).
2) A logical and computational controversy (the insufficiency of random errors producing highly complex, functionally integrated, self-correcting computer code).
3) A mathematical controversy (clearly insufficient probabilistic resources for anything but the most trivial changes based on Darwinian mechanisms).
Politics have nothing to do with any of this. It’s just basic reason, logic, and evidence.
If “evolution” means that living things have changed over time, and they share many characteristics and DNA code, but we don’t have any idea how this could have happened without some kind of intelligent design — then count me as an evolutionist.
Otherwise, Alan Rogers, don’t try to con me with transparent BS. I’m not stupid or poorly educated.
Move along to another potential victim.
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Cambrian "explosion" took many millions of years. It was originally called an "explosion" because research and information about it were limited at that time and it appeared that many species arose very quickly (geologically speaking). It is now usually called the Cambrian radiation.
2. Biological entities are not computers and do not contain "computer code".
3. The "probabilistic resources" crap is based on made up numbers that mean absolutely nothing.
gildo, you're an uneducated dolt, with useless, outdated, already refuted arguments. And it's you IDiots who make evolution vs ID/creation/religion into a political controversy.
Oh, and you might want to use some "basic reason and logic" instead of preaching and promoting religious fairy tales, and you really ought to get some actual "evidence" before you open your mouth.
