Friday, April 28, 2006
Walking the Dogma
As counterintuitive as it seems that a species could develop new physical traits simply because such a mutation might be advantageous (can we all learn to fly or to breathe underwater if we just wish to long enough?), it simply defies credulity to think that human beings not only physically evolved from ape-like creatures, but developed the ability to think rationally by a similar process. ...
According to Casey Luskin, Public Policy spokesman for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which is seeking to establish the right of teachers to question Evolutionary theory, the question isn't whether it would have been advantageous for man to develop the ability to reason -- of course it would have. The real question is whether mutations are capable of producing this. "This certainly seems to strain Darwin's theory. It appears that something else has to be added to the equation to explain human complexity."
Ya just have to wonder if these guys ever get whiplash from their 180s.
Of course, it is somewhat amusing to see the Discovery Institute tout an article that, though the height of its intellectual content is incredulity, still says the following about the objection that ID "is inappropriate for a science curriculum because it relies on something other than pure science to advance its assertions":
This can seem eminently sensible to most reasonable people. After all, a theory that relies on something as unverifiable as a Supreme Creator is hardly fitting for a science lab -- it would be much more appropriately addressed in the context of a philosophy or humanities class.
air jordan shoes
nike huarache sale
nike roshe run
adidas ultra boost
nike air force
michael kors bags