Sunday, January 07, 2007

Evolution says nothing about...

Dembski's pal Denyse O'Leary is quite amusing. She seems to have very little understanding about logic and science. The post of interest is again the one dated (Jan 5th, 2007). Writes she:

In Commentary magazine, Eric Cohen's "The Human Difference" offers to explain why most North Americans do not accept the current science pundits' vision of the world:

On the evidence provided by nature, Darwin’s claim of common descent seems undeniably compelling; man’s emergence via genetic mutation and natural selection seems likely; and the possibility of man’s never emerging seems all too possible. Yet for all its insights into the development of complex life, the theory of evolution ends before the most interesting questions begin. Where did matter come from in the first place, and with it the latent possibility of man? What is the source of nature’s fixed laws, by which the chance process of evolution plays itself out? Why do animals seek to survive and reproduce at all, hungering for life even with its manifold sufferings?

To these questions, modern Darwinian theory has no compelling answer, and its methods are poorly equipped even to initiate the right sort of inquiry. Evolution may explain the mechanisms of man’s descent, but not the mystery of his ascent, including the wonder he exhibits about the origins and destiny of the cosmos—a wonder that serves no useful animal function. A theory of man’s origins is not yet a theory of man, let alone a theory about why there is something rather than nothing.
She ends with a comment of her own: "Well, exactly". Well, exactly, Denyse, it's true. Darwinian theory has no compelling answer to these questions. Neither should it. Neither should the theory of gravity, theories about electromagnetism, theories about material stress, theories about the change in global temperatures, theories about... Well, you get the picture. Intelligent design creationists like Denyse seem to seriously think that a theory has to answer ALL questions for it to be valid. This is simply nonsensical and only shows her willful ignorance about science in general. I can only assume that Dembski lets her share his blog because she shares his conclusions and he really couldn't care less how she reached them.


Post a Comment

<< Home