Rather than clutter and complicate this main thread, I may occasionally post some illustrations/examples of my points on other threads. And that is the case with this one:
The first 35 seconds of this CMI video is a great example of a lame argument that may impress layperson audiences but makes me do a loud face-palm:
[If Darwin Knew This, Would He Still Be a Darwinist?]
(1) No, Darwin was NOT working from an evidence vacuum. Far from it.
(2) Yes, considering that Darwin lived and worked a couple of centuries ago, OF COURSE there was a lot of biology “stuff” that he didn’t know. So what?
Indeed, #2 makes Darwin’s work all the more impressive. He didn’t know anything about DNA and factors like genetic draft and genetic drift—but he built an important foundation for the centuries of discoveries which followed.
@jeffb , I don’t expect everyone to watch the entire video but I just wanted to post it for the general readership who may find the subtopic helpful.
POSTSCRIPT: Of course, I also wince a bit whenever the term “Darwinst” is used. Rhetorically, it does connect—as intended—with other evil “ists” in the minds of many people, much as…
@jeffb , don’t feel that you have to tackle that thread as well. It is just an example-sidebar.
As always, take your time with this present thread.
1 Like