UPDATE: This is one of those posts that reminds me why I don’t write on Intelligent Design (ID)/ Darwinian evolution very often. It isn’t that there aren’t tons of great defenses for ID and seemingly endless problems with the (ironically) constantly evolving claims of Darwinian evolution (or whatever term they prefer), it is that any post on it brings the blind faith defenders out in force. They are zealous, all right, but tend to visit from Stereotype Land (TM) with one erroneous comment after another and are so immune to correction that I don’t think they ever listen (all the while claiming the same about ID proponents).
This post is a perfect example. At least three Darwin defenders didn’t just misstate my views, they made things up completely and, most ironically, didn’t realize they were mocking the evolution position and not mine. Examples:
1. This post says that evolution states how much or how little an organism will change over time. It doesn’t say that. It has never said that.
2. I’m interested, Neil, in the reference you use to ascertain that evolution posits constant change among all species.
3. You still didn’t say why “living fossils” is detrimental to evolution – which I believe was the intent of your original post.
For the record, I believe that micro-evolution exists, is well supported by evidence and does not require constant change. I have never stated otherwise, but my elite visitors know better, eh?
I’ll elaborate on the irony of their comments: My main point was about the scientists at the aquarium who “knew” how a particular species had evolved . . . until they realized it hadn’t evolved at all. Their original claims weren’t science, just speculation. They were the ones assuming that macro-evolution posits constant change, not me. I’ll type that again, slowly , for effect: They were the ones assuming that macro-evolution posits constant change, not me. I was the one mocking them for always assuming constant change until — oops! — they realize they were wrong. Again.
But despite multiple reminders that they were putting words in my mouth, they continued to use the “type comments first / (maybe) read the post later” approach. That’s pretty irritating.
I also find the commenters’ “just so” explanations amusing. Again, I never claimed that evolution involved constant change among all species. But watch how quick they are to confirm that their theory supports zero evolution as readily as it does the evolution from lifeless chemicals to birds, caterpillar / butterflies, elephants, humans, etc. They have a catch-all excuse: Uh, if it didn’t evolve, then the environment didn’t change. But they don’t know that, they assume it, and they can’t explain why the same environment caused massive changes for other species but not for those that allegedly didn’t evolve. And they ignore that they are just one fossil find for having to give up another series of drawings showing the alleged stages of evolution.
So if the Darwin defenders want to get all uppity about assumptions of constant change, their objection is not with me, but the scientists who draw cute little pictures of how things “must” have evolved. Sadly, my guess is that they’ll still miss the irony of the aquarium scientists and their own prejudices that led them to vilify me here and elsewhere. That’s OK, I’m used to it.
I always like to remind them that even if their nothingness-to-molecules-to-life-to-Angelina Jolie worldview was true, it would select for survivability, not truth. They would have no reason to have such confidence that they are capable of discerning what is really true. That bit of logic never seems to occur to them.
Also, they seem most certain that my claims were not only wrong but that it was a bad thing for me to make them, and that it was a very bad thing for me not to approve all their comments. But they can never ground their morality. And apparently, for most evolutionists I’ve come across, things like killing innocent but unwanted human beings in the womb is morally benign or even good, and does not conflict with Darwinian evolution (yes, they actually make tortured defenses of how it helps save the species). But they know that comment moderation is a universal evil and that if you practice it you are really, really bad! I could quintuple my traffic here if I didn’t moderate ID / Evo posts, but it isn’t worth it. I mainly post these to share with open minded people who know they’ll never see these things in the mainstream media or academia.
A couple thoughts on a recent comment.
If I may be frank (and I’m doing my best not to be rude), I’ve read quite a bit on this subject, and when you become familiar with a subject there are certain fallacies that stick out like sore thumbs.
I assume that there are certain things that people say about the Bible that make you want to scream. Things that demonstrate that the person making the statement is either repeating something they heard, or didn’t read the passage in context.
Yes, I spend a lot of time ensuring that I’ve read the Bible (and everything else) in context and like to teach others to do the same. Sadly, this commenter didn’t read my post or my comments carefully and, as noted above, reached the opposite conclusion of what I said. He should be angry at the evolutionists, not me.
Please tell why my pointing out this absolute fact is bothering you so.
Because it is a predictable and massive waste of time. I’m thinking of closing comments on future ID / Evo posts. It just gets tiring correcting all the fallacious, overzealous Darwin defenders.
Finally, even if I am wrong, all my errors are 100.00% due to their Darwinian evolution. My conversion from atheism, my faith in the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and more were solely due to their beloved evolution. [Thanks, btw, because I wouldn't trade a life in Christ for anything.] So why are they so angry at the outcome of their process? Seems kinda irrational.
Note: Comments will be moderated, so I wouldn’t invest too many keystrokes in them, especially if they are going to repeat the tired and fallacious points made thus far. —–
P.S. BTW, if people wonder why I give a shorter leash to evos / atheists, it is because I’m very experienced with their tactics and arguments. I can spot time wasters a mile away. A “raiding party” came from Richard Dawkins’ website once and it was quite amusing. They had decided to pick 5 religious blogs to attack and I was one of the lucky ones. Oh noes!!!
One of the best parts was pointing out to them that in their efforts to root out the evils of religion from the world that they had only picked Christian blogs. While some hemmed and hawed the standard lines about “Jihad envy” (whatever that really means) and how they just knew Christianity better, I appreciated that their leader ‘fessed up about their bias. Here is some fun reading if you are interested.
The tautology of Darwinian evolution never seems to embarrass its proponents.
Following up his comments on the stunning half billion years of changelessness (stasis) demonstrated by the pterobranch, David Tyler now addresses the unchanging cricket, one of whose fossils was found from 100 million years ago: He comments on howthe fact that many life forms seem motionless in time is handled in the science literature . . .
It reminds me of an aquarium we visited (in Boston, I think). The original sign for one species noted how it had evolved over the years. It was all speculative, of course. Then they found an ancient fossil of the species and — oops! — realized it hadn’t evolved at all.
Did they question their presuppositions?
They concluded that it was proof of evolution. Because, after all, in their worldview Darwinian evolution is true or Darwinian evolution is true. Now that’s science!