Ptaylor
Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Trouble at t'mill:
| Quote | 17
StephenB
09/03/2008
2:24 pm
Like most cynics, Pigliucci’s attempt at irony backfires because his analogy contradicts his argument. Flat earth and Darwinist ideologies came first, and have become obsolete; round earth and ID sciences came later and are what’s happening now. If you are going to lampoon your opponent with historical references, the first order of business is to get hold of your chronology. |
| Quote | 18
DaveScot
09/03/2008
5:58 pm
StephenB
How do you figure “Darwinist ideologies” came before creationism? |
Edited to add:
It gets better. In another response DaveT loses focus on current thinking of world-shapism:
| Quote |
20
DaveScot
09/03/2008
6:32 pm
Pigliucci said “creationism”. It was the focus, indeed the subject line, of his article “Is Sarah Palin a Creationist?”. Palin, like many conservatives, falls on the side of teaching the controversy over chance and design in the origin and diversity of life and letting people decide for themselves what to believe from there. Atheists are of course frightened spitless by this as even with exclusivity in the classroom to teach only their theory of chance they fail to convince many students. Pigliucci tries to use the tired old argument that presenting evidence of creation in contrast to evolution by chance is like presenting evidence of a flat earth in contrast to a round earth. Pigliucci, like many blind chance worshippers, doesn’t understand the difference. The evidence for a round earth really is overwhelming and easily taught. Nobody insists on presenting the evidence for a flat earth because virtually everyone, even knuckle dragging bible thumping creationists, acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for a flat earth. Pigliucci and scientists like him are frustrated at their own failure to make a convincing-enough case for evolution by chance & necessity that it can’t put down creationism as easily as the evidence for a round earth puts down evidence of a flat earth. |
My emphasis. Yes, it is just a typo, but when it is Dave's, it's priceless.
Edited again to add:
Aww, he's gone and fixed it.
--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016
|
