Say it ain’t so. What else have they got? Oh yeah, tax dollars, TV hair models, and court judgements.
Tom Bethell responds to Mike Behe’s recent comments on Darwin claims:
Of interest is the Nature News blog by Helen Pearson. Mike Behe alludes to it in passing. Pearson says that Thornton et al. say their paper “is a challenge to proponents of intelligent design, who maintain that complex biological systems can have only been created by a divine force.” (Any ref. for that last comment?) Thornton thinks that his work is a rebuttal to those who appeal to to a “supernatural process.”
But there’s something else here. Repeatedly and over years, the Darwinian world is reassured that there’s nothing new to “ID creationism.” its just fundamentalism in a new get-up. Then, when the Darwinians think they have something responsive to ID they waste no time, hollering out in triumph: “See what we’ve got here! Pretty good, eh? What do you say to that?”
It tells you that all along they have been uncomfortable about their inability to respond to ID with anything other than insults, misrepresentation and name-calling.
It’s a real struggle over worldviews. For decades, the Darwinians were confident that Science was so strongly on their side that they barely had to respond to those benighted upstarts. Now, maybe, some of them are not so sure. They realize that those who ostentatiously side with Science can’t be entirely dismissive of requests that they provide evidence in support of their worldview.
(Still, a great mystery remains: Why do they cling so tenaciously to a worldview that is so bleak? “Nyah nyah, Life has no meaning. Get used to it . . .” Why does this nihilistic posture appeal to so many of intellectual disposition? Maybe there have already been good answers to this. If so, I’d like to hear them again.)
Follow UD News at Twitter!