Monday, August 16, 2010

Well Said

Gil Dodgen:
This is my mission and message. The Darwinistic chance-and-necessity-creative-engine nonsense as an explanation for all that exists in living systems — that is currently promoted as “irrefutable science with overwhelming evidence” — is completely out of the ballpark of reality, evidence, and reason.

It’s not a close call. It’s a slam dunk that Darwinism cannot account for what we observe in living things. Figuring this out is trivially easy.

Darwinists want us to believe the following: Screw things up. Throw wrenches randomly into complex machinery. Delete, replace, copy, insert, or otherwise randomly abuse existing functional information, and (given enough time) malaria can turn into Mozart.

Please give me a break, and don’t try to convince me that this transparently ludicrous nonsense should be taken seriously.
Commenters add:
I began chapter 9 of my book with a quote from Jay Homnick (who is not a scientist):
It is not enough to say that design is a more likely senario to explain a world full of well-designed things. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident…you have essentially lost your mind.


I suspect that one of the reasons why so many intelligent people have “lost their minds” is the human tendency to conformistic thinking. The sad reality is that the fact itself that most people believe one thing is often enough to make most people believe it, even in spite of evidence.

I remember that, when I was studying medicine, I really did no understand how the darwinian mechanism could work in reality. But I thought that the fault was in my lack of knowledge of the details, because indeed at that time my knowledge of the theory was very superficial. But still, what I knew did not make much sense.

IOW, while I suspected that something could be wrong in the theory, I sincerely believed that the theory must certainly have stronger justifications than I knew at the time.

Years after, when I started to be interested in the ID debate, and consequently led to deepen my understanding of the different issues involved, I quickly discovered that I had been wrong: the theory had no real justifications at all. It was simply, obviously, hopelessly false.

That was the beginning of my passion for ID: no special religious motives, no agenda, just the sincere indignation of my love for knowledge and truth.

My commitment to the ID cause is not difficult: I am really, deeply sure that the ID theory is correct, at least in the measure that a scientific theory can be considered correct. And I am completely, serenely sure that the darwinian theory is false.

Our darwinists friends will certainly say that your, and my, position is simply an argument from incredulity. We know they are wrong about that, because we know perfectly well how sound and serious and convincing are the positive arguments behind our conviction.

But, for once, I want to take the pleasure of saying it aloud: I am incredulous. I am absolutely, unbelievably incredulous about the darwinian theory, and I am proud, very proud to be. That incredulity is a cognitive duty, the only reasonable attitude for any serious thinker with a serious scientific approach. It’s the incredulity which forces us to reject the unjustified dogmatism, the intellectual compromise, and the cognitive superficiality which are implicit in darwinian thought.


IlĂ­on said...

When I used to be active on the ARN discussion board, I was able to shame the DarwinDefenders over asserting Dawkins' "argument from incredulity" pseudo-fallacy identification by mocking them as shills for credulity.

Matteo said...

Indeed. I've never understood why anyone of sound mind and allegedly "skeptical" bearing would throw that phrase around. The next time I see it used, I'll simply ask: "When did credulity become an intellectual virtue?"