The chutzpah Darwinists sometimes bring to the table is often breathtaking. This tactic is based on the old saw about the wife who catches her husband in flagrante delicto with another woman and the following exchange ensues:
Wife: “How could you?”
Husband: “How could I what?”
Wife: “Be in bed with another woman of course!”
Husband: “I’m not in bed with another woman.”
Wife: “I see her right there.”
Husband: “No you don’t.”
Wife: “Yes I do”
Husband: “Who are you going to believe, me our your lying eyes?”
It is not unusual for an exchange with a Darwinist to go like this:
Darwinist unambiguously advances proposition X.
IDer quotes the Darwinist and demonstrates that proposition X is an error.
Darwinist: “I didn’t advance proposition X. You are lying when you say I did.”
IDer: “Yes you did. I quoted you advancing proposition X just now.”
Darwinist: “No, you didn’t.”
IDer. “Uh, yes I did.”
Darwinist: [always implied; never stated]: “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
Here’s an example with a Darwinist who goes by Adapa :
In a previous thread William J. Murray advanced this proposition:
If something with CSI over the threshold limit can be shown at least in principle to be plausibly generated from some combination of natural laws and chance, then ID as a theory is falsified.
Since science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today, what you call “CSI”, then ID speculation (it’s never been a theory) has been falsified. You can go home now.
It is glaringly obvious that Adapa is saying not only that unguided natural forces are sufficient to produce the diversity of life but in fact have been demonstrated to have done so and therefore the ID position (i.e., that the process is guided) has been falsified.
If the idea “ID has been falsified” means anything at all, it means that Adapa is saying that the process has been shown to be unguided. That is, in fact, the whole point of Adapa’s comment. In summary, he is saying: “The idea that evolution is “guided” has been falsified. Go home now.”
William J. Murray asked Adapa to back up his assertion. Instead of backing up his position Adapa hurls verbal abuse at WJM.
Realizing that he is fighting a losing battle, Adapa then resorts to the “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes tactic.” He denies saying what he has just been quoted as saying:
I [only] said then ID has been falsified by WJM’s offered falsification criteria.
In other words instead of admitting his error and retracting it, Adapa resorts to the “me or your lying eyes tactic.” He says he did not make the unqualified assertion that science has demonstrated that evolution is unguided. He says he made that assertion only in a qualified way. Adapa is saying that everything in his assertion is qualified by the phrase: “what you call ‘CSI.’” Blithering nonsense. Take the clause out and the meaning of the sentence does not change one iota. Adapa says ID has been falsified. Period. Indeed, that is the whole point of his assertion.
The “me or your lying eyes” tactic is hilarious in a sense, but at a more basic and important level, it is sad and pathetic.
The process itself is unguided just like in the real world.
All evolution requires is imperfect self-replicators competing for resources and the unguided processes take over from there.