According to a headline writer of what is supposed to be an actual news story, "US radicals blow their tops over volcano movie as Darwinism debate rages". Who are these "US radicals"? Why anyone who might dare oppose Darwinian hegemony:
Culture wars raging in the United States are reaping new victims as monster-screen IMAX cinemas and top museums are dragged into the fierce debate over the origin of life.
Pressure from ultraconservative religious groups has prompted some theaters equipped with the high quality panoramic IMAX screens to cancel showings of several movies which refer to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
Some politically powerful religious groups dismiss the theory, despite its widespread acceptance throughout the rest of the world.
Now if that's a value-free straight news story then I'll eat my much needed hat: "radicals" and "ultraconservative"? What about "secularists" and "ultraliberals"? No, no of course not. The Darwinists are squirming.
[Why, they must have had andy write that headline...]
10 comments:
How is getting some IMAX films canceled because they mention evolution 'opposing the Darwinist hegemony'?
The way to overthrow this secularist conspiracy is to come up with a testable alternative hypothesis to Darwinism, do real-world physical tests of this hypothesis, and publish the results so that others can replicate them if they so desire.
Do that, and Darwinism will join philogiston and the geocentric theory of the Universe on the ash-heap of history.
Sorry, we had someone's who's primary interest is listed as "atheism" post link spam in comments. His comment went to the ash heap of history.
Dark Avenger, how can I stand before your penetrating comments? We mere mortals stand in awe.
Alan, so you're saying that Dark Avenger is wrong? That the way overthrown Darwinism isn't to oppose it scientifically? Well, I suppose one might feel that way after the complete failure of creationists and IDers to manage it so far.
P.S. There are plenty of secular evolutionists on the right-leaning side of the aisle too - I'm one of them.
P.P.S. If I had written the headline it would have been more entertaining.
As Phillip Johnson has shown in Darwin on Trial, Darwinism doesn't stand up to its own professed scientific standards. Darwinistic macro-evolution has not been demonstrated by DA's "real-world physical tests." Something isn't true simply because you decide there's no God and you don't have any other answer.
The review over at Amazon.com by John Boggan has a good perspective on "Darwin on Trial".
One paragraph:
Johnson rests his case on two rather shaky assumptions: first, that absence of evidence is evidence is absence, and second, that the fossil record truly has an appalling absence of evidence for evolution. Not only has the fossil evidence always been better than Johnson leads the reader to believe, but the evidence continues to be found, not only in paleontology, but also in the fields of genetics, developmental biology, and molecular biology.
You say "common ancestry", I say "common designer."
Without a reliable fossil history or the ability to artificially induce macroevolution*, the latter would seem to be more reasonable than the former.
* And after simulating millions of years of mutations on fruit flies, we still can't get them to be anything but fruit flies - the strongest evidence against macroevolution, IMO.
The fossil record isn't unreliable, you won't find Jurassic-period plants in Permian strata, or, despite the best efforts of some folks, a human footprint in that of a dinosaur track.
As for the 'millions of years of mutations' remark, it displays a complete lack of understanding of how mutations arise, what causes them, and how they relate to the theory of evolution.
Or it shows you can't answer it, so you have to go after the person who raised the point. ;)
Of course, I'm not the one who's confusing "Darwinism" with more recent models of macroevolutionary theory, DA...
You gave an or, and when I smack down one of them, the other is suddenly operative.
so you have to go after the person who raised the point
How does criticizing someones reasoning equal the above.
I think that more than a refresher course in science is probably needed here.......
Post a Comment