There will always be a fundamentalist group who have blinded themselves to the myriad of holes in the argument for Evolution. Intelligent Design may be the only alternative, but these fundamentalists cannot accept ID because their entire belief system makes them biased against it.
35 comments
Well, yeah. My belief system relies on, you know, truth and facts and stuff, so...yeah. Guilty.
"There will always be a fundamentalist group who have blinded themselves to the myriad of holes in the argument against evolution. Evolution may be the only alternative, but these fundamentalists cannot accept evolution because their entire belief system makes them biased against it."
Fixed it for you.
There is no "argument" for evolution. It's an accepted scientific theory supported by paleontology, geology, biology, micro-biology, genetics and other disciplines. The only "argument" exists in the minds of fundies. No one else pays any attention to ID other than considering it an amusing example of self-delusion. Fundies keep whompin' on evolution but it just keeps getting stronger.
Holes in a theory don't invalidate it. You can't disprove a theory by "god of the gaps" arguments. We know almost nothing about gravity, but that doesn't make the theory of gravity wrong, or make the theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster holds everything down with his Noodly Appendage automatically right.
I find it amusing that many creationist/ID proponents fall back, in desperation, by calling evolution a "faith", a "religion", and a "fairy tale". Now we see those who accept it are "fundamentalists". Not only can't they think up new arguments, but they can't even find words of their own, so they just fling them right back without seeing how ridiculous it looks.
Yes the 'belief system' of science thinks that 'Intelligent Design' is neither, rendering it 'a false claim', which science IS biased against. So, you're kind of right.
I "love" how they conveniently ignore that many complex carbon chains allow for self-replication naturally, with it being simple chemistry...
Of course, their understanding of odds and statistics are also rather sketchy; so of COURSE it couldn't possibly have happened because a single little wave would've stopped it! (nevermind that A) it could've happened again, B) there could easily have been far more and C) a single clump of molecules is probably far too small to care about something like that)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.