Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Cornelius Hunter <>
Date: Wed Aug 03 2005 - 14:42:50 EDT

Glenn and Pim:

I am now seeing the same questions repeated which I have already answered. So I'll give one last response, and let you two have the last word. I will respond if you have something new to say, or if someone else on the list wants to chime in.


You wrote: "So let's focus on common descent and marsupials and wolves. You suggested that these 'disproved' common descent. As I have shown, they don't. And you have provided no reason why they should disprove common descent other than by the somewhat naive argument that they look very similar to you."

But of course I did not say that. Perhaps you could read what I wrote.

You wrote: "[Evolution does] predict nested hierarchies" If that is the case, then evolution is false. But, in fact, the non hierarchical data are explained just fine, so evolution does not predict nested hierarchies

You wrote: "But I had hoped you had actually read Theobalt's FAQ which addresses this in quite some detail.
What part do you not agree with?." I'm sorry, but copying / pasting from websites doesn't work. I asked you to read the Penny paper to see how vacuous these claims are, and I explained the history behind this nested hierarchy claim, and what it is all about. I see no evidence that you are seeking to learn more about this.


Let's see, I explain that I do not have a theological problem with evolution and my concern is over the science, you then grill me about God, and you say *I'm* the one with the theological ax to grind. I provide several evidences against evolution, with citations, yet "we know from the evidence that evolution has taken place," after all the counter evidence is "mostly in my imagination." I explain that ID is about the problem of detecting design (as opposed to purely naturalistic explanations), but you insist it must explain mechanism, erroneously citing a paragraph where J. Wells talks about embryology.

You ask: "You have said that ID says nothing about speciation. What then DOES it tell us?" I'll explain one last time. Naturalism, with its evolutionary theories, restricts the historical sciences to law-like, naturalistic, processes (for theological reasons). ID makes no such assumption. Instead, it tries to determine methods and criteria that can be used to objectively discern design. There is a need for this since naturalism simply presupposes law-like processes must always work, without checking to see if that makes sense. No matter how difficult the problem, and how badly law-like processes explain the data, naturalism can never give up its quest for, as Pim has reminded us so many times, that would be an argument from ignorance. ID tries to address this difficult question without simply making an argument from ignorance. Note that ID leaves unanswered a whole raft of why / how questions that you are asking. These are philosophical / theological questions that are outside the scope of ID.

You write: "The fact is, that in general it is not honest to merely knock the other guy's explanation without really offering one of their own. I find it cowardly. If all you have to do is sit in the bleachers and throw rocks and criticisms and the guys on the football field actually doing the work, you are rather a useless individual." Ah yes, I knew I would get treated well here.

Received on Wed Aug 3 14:45:03 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 03 2005 - 14:45:05 EDT