Blogger Pat Sullivan tries to understand intelligent design controversy
Some interesting notes from Pat Sullivan, a blogger who is trying to understand the intelligent design controversy. He agrees with me that Francis Collins's "why can't we all just be nice to each other in a vague sort of way" approach will not in fact work.
In fact, I spent several hours recently listening to scientists who had lost their jobs for insufficient support for Darwinism. Francis, THAT'S why.
Anyway, Sullivan says this:
I was not impressed with Collin's book. His arguments for religious belief and evolution did not satisfy me at all. He (and most other evolutionists) use bad logic in my opinion. If something can somehow be described (not proven in a lab mind you) that "could" have happened by natural, evolutionary means, it proves that it DID happen by natural means. Over and over, he describes how evolution could have created and assembled something "irreducibly complex" and then adds that this has never been been proven in a lab. Then the huge jump is made to say it DID happen that way. And thus, according to him, intelligent design is proved wrong.
I read and re-read what he wrote and I shook my head and said "this is really stupid!" There HAVE to be stronger arguments than what he makes! I was incredulous as he repeated this nonsense over and over. I was actually angry. I wanted something that forced me to say "hmmmm, that is a really good argument." But not once did I think this. His illogic seemed so evident and his admissions as to the lack of actual "proof" left me dumbfounded. Maybe I am just dumb. There, I said it for you!
Noi, Pat, you are not dumb. The problem is that, as genome mapper Francis Crick has announced , your brain evolved to leave descendants, not to understand scientific truths. The fact that pronouncements by a scientist sound flaccid or vapid is strong evidence for of that fact.