Admission number one: ID does not propose a mechanism. He criticizes evolution for not having the step-by-step details of every single evolutionary event, but gives ID a pass, because it doesn't even propose anything. It's not just tautological, it's intellectually vacant.
Admission number two: All he's got is the "looks like" argument. This is such a tiresome excuse; he's playing to an audience of the credulous. Pointing to artifacts and saying that someone made it does not mean one can point to anything and say someone made it. Maybe a painting implies a painter, but rain does not imply a rainer.
I looked at my blogroll and I'm shocked I didn't long ago add this to the list (oh, so fucking prestigious). Guess it shows how much attention I've paid to the thing the last several months.
Also, found at the site is a link to what I believe to be my new favorite t-shirt (sorry Holden and your pony shirt):
Order it here.
No comments:
Post a Comment