Deepening Darwin's Dilemma (newly released film shows how science utterly destroys Darwinism)

Discovery Institute ^ | September 16, 2009 | Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

[BertWheeler]

Could we first destroy ACORN? Then, we’ll see if we can talk atheists out of their bloodthirsty ways, ok?

[GodGunsGuts]

ACORN is only the symptom, evo-atheism is the actual disease.

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[JoeProBono]

THE MINOR PHYLA

[Filo]

ROFLMAO.

Science doesn’t destroy Darwinism. Even your deliberate misunderstanding and misrepresentation of science doesn’t.

But it is amusing.

[tumblindice]

(here we go down the rabbit-hole again)

Ba’et bashak ushlay pachzar
Be’afsay-chak savsu, makdo:
au az chilcain haya nimzar
umtay-aran kairdu.

“Gura bnee, min hapiton
mai ‘chod-shino, chil-ziparno!
mayof-girgir tanoos, za’on
maychetesh bim’gono!”

Vehu shalaf saypho hachaz:
nad, cheepace et pechik-tzarav —
veko amad betzel zamzam,
tapoos beheerhoorav.

[count-your-change]

“...even the most cautious opinion holds that 500 million subsequent years of opportunity have not expanded the Cambrian range, achieved in just five million years. The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.”
(Steven Gould, The Richness of Life, pg. 217)

The Cambrian explosion becomes even more of a refutation of Darwinism as time goes on and eventually either Darwin will have to tossed overboard or Darwinism so modified as to not be recognizable as such.

Either way Darwin is being dismantled.

[Natural Law]

No offense, but making a movie doesn't reinforce the scientific argument, particularly when your movie set out to prove a point. This has as much bearing on the subject as "An Inconvenient Truth" has on proving Global Warming or "Pinocchio" has in proving that puppets can become boys.

[GodGunsGuts]

Actually, An Inconvenient Truth takes the same approach on the global warming debate as the Temple of Darwin approaches the origins debate--namely, they simply declare themselves the winner and then use the force of government to curtail further debate. If any global warming movie should be compared to Darwin's Dilemma, it should be a movie that exposes human-caused global warming as pseudo-scientific sham...such as The Great Global Warming Swindle.

[Buck W.]

“This has as much bearing on the subject as “An Inconvenient Truth” has on proving Global Warming or “Pinocchio” has in proving that puppets can become boys”

Shhhhhh! GGG still believes that puppets can become boys!

[Buck W.]

“...either Darwin will have to tossed overboard or Darwinism so modified as to not be recognizable as such.”

Are you so brainwashed as to believe that such a result would be a bad thing for science? Although certainly not for the inane reasons presented in this creation rationalization comic book, if credible evidence is presented that refutes evolution, another theory will take its place. Science, you see, is falsifiable. That’s a necessary feature of scientific inquiry.

Is creation rationalization falsifiable?

[Natural Law]

"GGG still believes that puppets can become boys!"

I wouldn't go that far. GGG has a legitimate faith based point of view, it's just not compatible with science and that is what appears to drive him. He rejects outright the concept of theistic evolution and Intelligent Design and with it the entire teachings of the Catholic Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that theology, or the sacred doctrine, as a science, the raw material data of which consists of written scripture and the tradition of the Catholic Church. These sources of data were produced by the self-revelation of God to individuals and groups of people throughout history. Faith and reason, while distinct but related, are the two primary tools for processing the data of theology.

According to Aquinas, God reveals himself through nature so truth is made known through the confluence of both Scripture and science (Natural Law).

In this context his continuous assault on science is an assault on the very creations and marvels of God.

[Buck W.]

“In this context his continuous assault on science is an assault on the very creations and marvels of God.”

Very well put.

[count-your-change]

I have no time for your silliness, neither does anyone else.

[Buck W.]

Do you know how dumb that response looks? Really, Forrest, you should heed the advice of your own tag line.

[count-your-change]

post #15

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[NewLand]

Shouldn’t these articles be in General/Chat?

[GodGunsGuts]

No, but your reply should.