The Robert Taft Club -- Dec. 5, 2007 www.RobertTaft.org
John Derbyshire, Tom Bethell, Ronald Bailey, and Charles Murray discuss the intersections between religion, evolution, genetics, and politics. Moderated by Marcus Epstein
However, thanks to a massive convergence of evidence supporting evolution (though without every step explicitly described right down through the micro-cosmic) it would be absurd to simply throw up our hands and assume evolution has failed us. This guy is the usual soft-headed proponent of intelligent design, mis-representing evolutionary theory in ways that do not give confidence that he understands what he is trying to dismiss.
Its fine to criticize evolutionary theory but at least show you understand it first. The complexity at the molecular level is not ipso facto evidence of creation, it just shows the intermediate forms (which lead to say, the mouse) bifurcating into the thousands and millions. This complexity means it becomes extremely difficult to tell the full evolutionary tale.
This man is not very well educated about natural selection. We can't show how a mouse evolved from scratch, because it didn't. It evolved from similar forms all the way back. To show the process, we'd have to know every organism in the lineage that lived for the last 4 billion years.
And natural selection is not "random accidents."
Natural selection designed the cell as well, this ID argument is so boring and old. There is simplier life than the cell...viruses for example.
Hahah, it is both funny and sad that an obviously intelligent man such as this is making arguments which serve only his emotional security...
sedicenobufalo 2 years ago
However, thanks to a massive convergence of evidence supporting evolution (though without every step explicitly described right down through the micro-cosmic) it would be absurd to simply throw up our hands and assume evolution has failed us. This guy is the usual soft-headed proponent of intelligent design, mis-representing evolutionary theory in ways that do not give confidence that he understands what he is trying to dismiss.
TulliusVII 2 years ago
Its fine to criticize evolutionary theory but at least show you understand it first. The complexity at the molecular level is not ipso facto evidence of creation, it just shows the intermediate forms (which lead to say, the mouse) bifurcating into the thousands and millions. This complexity means it becomes extremely difficult to tell the full evolutionary tale.
TulliusVII 2 years ago
This man is not very well educated about natural selection. We can't show how a mouse evolved from scratch, because it didn't. It evolved from similar forms all the way back. To show the process, we'd have to know every organism in the lineage that lived for the last 4 billion years.
And natural selection is not "random accidents."
Natural selection designed the cell as well, this ID argument is so boring and old. There is simplier life than the cell...viruses for example.
darwinbeatgod 3 years ago 2