Hey @swamidass @Faizal_Ali @T_aquaticus @Michael_Callen @dga471 @Jordan @John_Harshman @DaleCutler @John_Dalton @Patrick @nwrickert @Rumraket
I’m not posting this in the new thread because one of the best rules of this place is that posts must stay on topic, but I think the hope you guys have for a constructive dialogue with Egnor is a bit overly optimistic. He’s one of the nastier characters at the DI. He’s no Klinghoffer (because he does have some credentials and expertise) but you probably shouldn’t expect the kind of thoughtful dialogue that you’ve seen from Gauger and Nelson.
Sorry to be a fly in the ointment, but here’s the kind of stuff that Egnor writes:
I despise Darwinism. It is, in my view, an utterly worthless scientific concept promulgated by a third-rate barnacle collector and hypochondriac to justify functional, if not explicit, atheism.
Darwin still has some cache [sic] among design advocates — the usual trope is that he provided evidence for common descent and explained microevolution. In this I differ from some of my friends and colleagues sympathetic to ID/Thomism. Darwin’s “theory” is completely worthless to science, a degradation of philosophy, and lethal to culture.
“Natural selection” is meaningless junk science — dismal logic put to the service of atheism. Darwinism is the most effective engine of atheism in modern times, except perhaps for consumer culture, for which Darwin bears some responsibility. “Survival of the fittest” casts a scientific imprimatur on acquisition as a life-goal.
So why does this idiot “science” gain such respect?
And that is the meaning of Darwinism. This worthless science, idiot philosophy, and cultural rot is the creation myth of atheists, and homage is paid, as a duty, to the prophet and to his priests. Darwinian idolatry would be funny, if not for the trail of misery and horror Darwin left in his wake.
You can read one of his unhinged nasty rants here: