George Crispin reviews Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution, and it looks like it's worth reading:
Marxism has been proven a mistake. Freud’s psychoanalysis didn’t work. Now there is an argument that the speed of light is not a constant. Science changes positions all the time but Darwinism doesn’t budge. Anyone questioning it is instantly classified as a nut case, or if a scientist, one who can forget about establishment funding. Why is this? The system normally works well and, and except for Darwinism, science has accommodated much. Maybe it is because the "Darwinian high priesthood" stands to lose too much that they are allowed to get away with it. Then again, maybe they enjoy browbeating Christians (which is foolish, plenty of Christians have accommodated Darwinian beliefs) and they have hung in for a long time.
Like much of the rest of discredited 19th Century dogma, Darwinism, too, is headed for the dustbin of history.
5 comments:
"Science changes positions all the time but Darwinism doesn’t budge."
Absolute and utter nonsense. The evolutionary sciences change and grow continuously - the only disappointment to creationists is that the evidence continues to improve the theory. The core concept of common descent remains intact and stronger than ever.
Your statement that it is headed for the dustbin of history is wholly without merit. Of course, if creationists actually took the time to understand evolution beyond "I ain't never seen no fish turn into no monkey," we wouldn't even have to worry about you saying such silly things.
If evolutionists actually took the time to look for facts rather than blindly follow Darwin's dogma, we wouldn't even have to worry about you saying such silly things either.
"I ain't never seen no God make no universe nohow. Duh-huh!" See, andy, we can do it, too!
If evolutionists actually took the time to look for facts rather than blindly follow Darwin's dogma, we wouldn't even have to worry about you saying such silly things either.
Darwin's dogma? Darwin's ideas were just the beginning, and science has continued to develop upon it, and has yet to find anything that contradicts the basic premise of common descent with modification.
To claim otherwise makes you a fool or a liar, which is it?
Okay, let's cut the name calling. I'm sure the topic will come up again and andy can again be shocked that anyone would question evolutionary theory.
Post a Comment