One of ID's major advocates, William Dembski, shows us all how to run away from an argument whilst maintaining the illusion that he is addressing it. The question still stands: how does ID explain commonality among species, even to the molecular biological level? If ID is to replace evolution in explaining speciation, and assholes like Dembski claim it can and will, then an evidence-based explanation is needed for these observations. Where is it? Dembski will allow for commonality and then ask where the "original" came from in the first place. But will he provide any ID research proposals to shed light on this very interesting question? Or will he just ignore all of the evidences provided by the commonalities he so casually dismisses and childishly demand more from real scientists?
Meanwhile, O'Leary once again shows she can't get her argument straight. She is now arguing that this materialistic explanation for bacterial resistance indicates that bacteria were designed to resist antibiotics. Do-huh? How far is she going to move that goalpost back before she realizes that she's off the field? Until she gets to neutrons? All she's doing is conceding to atheist, anti-spiritualist arguments and stating that her gods are behind the results. I thought that was wrong. Clearly, O'Leary's understanding of genetics and evolutionary theory is lacking in both knowledge and faith. Way to go with the two-for!
But then again, I'm just a desperate atheist. My arguments can't hold up to faith...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
These two are worse than the Black Knight.
ReplyDelete