Interesting Intelligent Design and Evolution Spat Going On

Spread the love

Mike Haubrich, of Tangled Up in Blue Guy blog, has documented a discussion between a biologist, a commenter, and the Discovery Institute (a creationist “think” tank). No apes were harmed during this incident, but one of them may be rather embarrassed. It’s quite intresting, have a look: Cornelius Godsplains Science to a Scientist

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

6 thoughts on “Interesting Intelligent Design and Evolution Spat Going On

  1. Ho hum. Not to reopen an old wound but everyone in that discussion is missing the point. What are the odds that hydrogen and oxygen will combine to make water? What are the odds that hydrogen bonding and Van der Waal’s forces will result in ice floating on liquid water, allowing life to survive freezing temperatures? No one can even approach these questions. There are still papers being published concerning the odds of flipping fair coins (e.g.!

    My take is that life is just as much a property of the universe as is electromagnetic radiation. My response to the Discovery Institute folk would be to produce a probablistic proof that their deity is the one true deity.


  2. The sad thing is, it’s really not that interesting. It’s sad and depressing actually, since Cornelius is serving to reinforce the viewpoints of 40+% of Amurikans.

  3. I gotta agree with Lorax and bks: there’s nothing new here, except for the word “Godsplaining.” Just another creationist trying to pretend a long-debunked argument is still alive.

    I predict that Antyony McCarthy (the LEVELER donchaknow!) will show up here and try to gum up the debate with his own long-debunked arguments, pet peeves and outright lies about how science can’t possibly know everything, therefore it can’t know anytyhing, and don’t call him religious even though it’s obvious he is.

  4. FYI, my ‘not that interesting’ response was directed at the ‘conversation’ between myself and the wall creationist. It is not directed at Mike’s post, which of course is interesting!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *