Thursday, June 28, 2007

Here We Have A Prime Example

Of how Darwinism, when pushed to the wall, is most strongly supported by what amounts to a theological argument. If it could be shown that IC systems have been built via an undirected process (offering actual details and not hand-waving assertions), then the argument in favor of Darwinism would be strictly based on that evidence. Since such a thing has not been shown, the argument is based on theological conundrums that are essentially of the nature "what kind of incompetent/evil designer would make this world?" While certainly an interesting question to ponder, it bases what is alleged to be a scientific theory on theological musings and moral/aesthetic judgments.

The NYT has an article which is a classic example.

Refreshingly, the article holds back from the usual "who designed the designer" canard, which when asked always seems to me to be a virtual admission that the person asking it embraces Darwinism on purely philosophical grounds. Because the person cannot conceive of an undesigned Designer, unguided evolution must be true. After all, if a Designer is ruled out on logical grounds, what else could the answer be? It is therefore for them not really a question of physical evidence at all. This is of course a radically unempirical stance, and hence, unscientific.

No comments: