When someone points out that only evolutionary biologists are qualified to make judgements about evolution I like to counter with “only engineers are qualifed to make judgements about design”.
Hey, Darwinist Peanut Gallery, I'm an engineer! You guys are totally unqualified to tell me whether or not design is detectable. If you do, you are way outside your area of expertise, and I fail to see why your mystical ideas about the accidental origin of irreducibly complex nanosystems should carry the slightest weight with me. To put it simply, you have no idea what you are talking about! This becomes more and more apparent to me as I see the real ID arguments being sidestepped and ignored in favor of the usual "ID is a theocratic Trojan Horse" claptrap being proferred by those who seem to lack any real scientific counterarguments.
Well guys, continue to ignore and ridicule the arguments that are dismantling your metaphysical system. More and more people are seeing the ID arguments (and not just their misrepresentations) for themselves. They look at your weak non-sequitors offered as a response and wonder whether you even have a real case. You are like the British command in Singapore, with their big guns pointed toward the ocean to repel a seaborne invasion while the Japanese are in actuality pouring across the causeway on the landward side of the city. I enjoy a good argument, but you guys simply refuse to join the real battle. Why?
See also this.
2 comments:
Darwinist peanut gallery reporting in. Guess what: I am an engineer also.
In the future, I will remember to take any complaints by you about ad hominem attacks with a grain of salt. It is clear that you are more than willing to engage in them yourself, even when you have no idea whether or not the personal part is even true.
Geez, I was just using a little hyperbole to show the absurdity of the whole, "people who are not evolutionary biologists have no right to opine on the correctness of evolutionary theory" gambit that I see used again and again and again. I don't regard my "I'm an engineer" statement to be any more valid than that tired ploy. Both are equally absurd as categorical statements. However, I do find it kind of absurd that the staunch Darwinists think that an engineer would have no valid intuitions about the viability of the idea of design versus accidentalism...
So, have you read Darwin's Black Box and the Design Revolution, yet?
Post a Comment