Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Angry response to Christopher Booker in the UK Telegraph


Christopher Booker, writing in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, highlights some of the abuse he received for questioning the validity of Darwin’s theory in an earlier article. Christopher Booker – Why do people think Darwinism is a perfect creation 14/02/09. He writes;

“As an old hand at tangling with Darwinists, I was well aware that a howl of furious protests would greet my item last week describing their curious inability to recognise just how much of the story of evolution Darwin’s theory cannot explain.” For point this out he claims he was “…derided as “stupid”, “idiotic” and “scientifically illiterate”. Clearly I was unaware all these riddles had been solved by genetics and the decoding of the human genome.”

“…as my colleague Dr James Le Fanu has lucidly set out in his admirable new book Why Us? How Science Rediscovered The Mystery Of Ourselves (Harper Press, £18.99), the unravelling of the genome has done nothing of the kind. When mice, men and chimpanzees all turn out to be made of almost identical genetic material, the unknown factor which determines why the same building blocks should give rise to such an astonishing variety of different life-forms leaves the Darwinian thesis as full of holes as ever. To believe that genetics have solved the riddle relies as much on a leap of faith as that Biblical Creationism which causes the more fanatical Darwinians to foam at the mouth. ” 

When Darwinists get so angry about defending their beloved theory it becomes clear that they are not motivated by rational thought, but have an emotional need for evolution to be true.

Booker on Climate Change today

Science and Values

Quite telling. QuadFather
I've been blogging on this too, and you wouldn't believe the vitriol. One guy, in his first comment, started off by saying "You are a lying scumbag!" Another said this: "Intelligent design is the idea that scientists can solve scientific problems by invoking supernatural magic. It's a childish idiotic idea. It would not be worth talking about if there weren't so many drooling imbeciles trying to force this nonsense into America's science classrooms." Occasionally I actually get into a respectful dialogue, and that's what keeps me coming back. Thanks Dr. Dembski, for being on the forefront on this issue. John Andrew
I think one of the best examples of an honest man seeking the truth is Antony Flew. He was a vehement atheist for something like the last 50 years, convinced until just fairly recently that a God did not exist, that life evolved completely accidently, and even at one point, that humans had no free will (aka, he was a hard-determinist). But then, by honestly looking at the evidence, he came to the conclusion that a God had to exist (although he is a Deist and does not believe in an afterlife) and that the genetic coding within DNA is prime example of intelligence. He was also inspired by the careful balance of the cosmological constants and natural laws and this sort of thing. As far as ever becoming a theist, he said he is definitely open to the idea and says you cannot limit an omnipotent Being except for the logically impossible (such as a round square). He says he never knows what may happen. One day he may hear God speak to him, saying, "Can you hear me now?" If everybody was this honest, we wouldn't have these angry, raving atheists (not all, but those such as Richard Dawkins) and evolutionists (again, a prime example being Richard Dawkins) screaming at others for doubting their faith. Domoman

Leave a Reply