Has Doug, even one single time, ever "won" one of these back and forths with me? He still doesn't get it that the reason why I'm "obsessed" with him is because it's so easy to do.
What are the odds that he simply deletes this?
You actually think that believing that "god" magically placed mankind, in it's current form, on this planet about 6000 years ago is the mainstream view and it is the rest of us that are fringe? You actually think that's true. Just amazing.
Chapter 3, Jonathan Wells.
You fail to mention that Wells eduction was payed for by Sun Myung Moon. Wells is a Moonie. Wells recounts the events himself, indicating that his sole reason for obtaining the PhD was for the purpose of "destroying Darwinism".
As Wells himself wrote;
Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.[1]
Wells is clearly insane. I didn't know you were so into Moonies.
I could enter a theology PhD program just so I could get those letters and then attack religion from the inside. It would be the same thing. Why do you think referencing a "scientist" whose sole motivating issue is to "destroy" a branch of science is credible? That's a serious question I'd like to see you explain.
Chapter 4, Stephen C. Meyer
The jist of that chapter is Meyers insistence that the "elite scientists" are motivated not by the study of the actual evidence, but by a conspiracy to "destroy religion". I'm not sure how that has anything to do with evolution. It's also completely wrong.
Chapter 5, William Lane Craig
He doesn't even have an undergrad degree in any science discipline. He is as qualified to comment as you are. In fact, Lee Strobel could have interviewed you for the book as your qualifications are just as valid to the topic as Craig's. That is, you have none and neither does Craig.
Chapter 6, Robin Collins
You claim that Collins has a doctorate in physics. In fact, he does not. He entered a program but did not complete it. That is a factual error in your post that you should correct. Collins only doctorate is in philosophy.
The chapter deals with the "fine tuning argument". I addressed that in my post, however it should be noted that Collins is discussing the physics aspect of the debate and he is does NOT hold a PhD in physics. Regardless, his view is mere conjecture and speculation, and not evidence that "god did it".
Chapter 7, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards
That chapter discusses the "rare Earth hypothesis". While Gonzalez is clearly qualified to talk about that subject, and has, his view that life in the universe is exceedingly rare is the minority view in his field. It doesn't mean he's wrong, but most of his peers disagree.
Regardless, it doesn't have anything to do with theism in any case. To suggest that life is rare in the universe as evidence that "god did it", and that the biology of evolution is false is absurd.
Chapter 8, Michael J. Behe
Credentialed scientist indeed. He also said this;
"I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it."
I thought you considered that view "fringe" and "idiotic" Doug? I'm curious why you reference a scientist as supporting your argument when he states categorically that you are wrong?
Do you even know what Behe's point was in that chapter? I'd also point out that his point has been sharply criticized by many of his peers who do not hold the same view.
Chapter 10, J.P. Moreland
An undergrad degree in chemistry does not make one an "expert" Doug. It does not make one a "scientist". He is not an expert in brain physiology, and the claims he makes about the "evidence" are false.
There.. we have.. what.. 1 qualified PhD without an agenda? That's stacked up against the entire rest of academia, and you think the Darwinists are the "fringe". Alrighty. Not to mention that the 1 qualified scientist in the book refutes your core claim. That's hillariously funny.
But I'll repeat my offer. I'll read Strobel's book if you agree to read Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. We can even debate the merits of each on your "show" if you want.
No comments:
Post a Comment