Jurassicmac quotes from this post and responds:
“What’s really needed is a prize recognizing plausible non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution.”
Uh, before we start handing out prizes for plausible non-Darwinian mechanisms, someone should, y’know, propose one. All ears.
Jurassicmac’s comment is precious, because it illustrates with such crystal clarity a point Phillip Johnson made many times. Here’s Johnson:
Is the blind watchmaker hypothesis true? From the naturalistic standpoint of Darwinists like Dawkins, the question really doesn’t arise. Instead of truth, the important concept is science, which is understood to be our only (or at least by far our most reliable) means of attaining knowledge. Science is then defined as an activity in which only naturalistic explanations are considered and in which the goal is always to improve the best existing naturalistic explanation. Supernatural creation-or God-guided evolution-is not a naturalistic explanation. The blind watchmaker hypothesis is therefore merely a way of stating the commitment of “science” to naturalism, and as such the existence of a blind watchmaker is a logical necessity. If a critic doesn’t like Darwinism, his only permissible move is to suggest a better blind watchmaker. That a competent blind watchmaker doesn’t exist at all is not a logical possibility.
Jurassic is so entangled in his worldview to him alternatives to Darwinism that have been suggested at this site are not a logical possibility. They are almost literally “unthinkable.” He remains “all ears,” he says, but his worldview has made him deaf to anything other than what he wants to hear.