The writer starts with facts and then deteriorates into ad hominim attacks. Not good, especially so as he would not like the same treatment. Facts should stand or fall by their own strength or weakness. It shouldn't be necessary to support facts with snide remarks. It just detracts from the worth of the argument. It's also worthwhile to read the comments. Most of it is the ususal hype and trash, but there are some valid points made as well, especi8ally regarding the sourcing of the material. I happen to agree with what he says, but you don't need some world famous authority to support those conclusions - decent logic will do it just fine. Here's a thought. Normally an unexplained phenomenon is observed, a theory is then developed to try to explain it and then science tries to find evidence to support the theory. With evolution however, change was observed (Darwin only observed different kinds of finches)which was deemed to be evidence of some kind and then a teory had to be developed to fit the evidence. Scientists then went searching for other kinds of observed change in the natural world, which was presented as evidence for evolution. It is like saying "We know that a fat-free diet prolongs life The proof is that people on such a diet live longer." Imho it would by more scientifically correct to ask "which factors prolong life?" And then to answer, "Amongst other things, a fat-free diet, but there could also be other expalanations." As we know there are. Regarding evolution and especially in the light of objections to the ability of natural selection to achieve improvements, scientists should look for other "achevers" to promote improvements.
Maar dis mos wat Prof Phillip Johnson in sy boek Darwin on Trial al die pad sê: "Evolutionary biologists state their assumptions as fact. They state their assumptions emphatically, then treat them as proof. One of the first things I noticed was that some evolutionary biologists I talked to couldn't appreciate the difference between what they'd proved and what they'd only assumed. They didn't really understand the difference."Dankie Henrietta - ek het lekker gelees aan die artikel.Dawkins & Kie Homo Ignoramus op sigselwers :)))))
The list of names/Hier is die lys van mense:http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660And their blog/En hier is hulle blog:http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ (Dankie vir kostelike prentjie Liza!)
South Africa: 8 if I counted correctly, from different Universities
Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley. Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.
Post a Comment