Thoughts in a Haystack

Actually, Luskin said the *amount* of evidence was unfathomable, not the evidence itself.

This is to be expected with a "theory" so vague that it can be used to explain any and all observations. Under such conditions, nature truly does offer immeasurable amounts of evidence for design!
 

Luskin said the *amount* of evidence was unfathomable, not the evidence itself.

I know ... but immeasurable, impossible to comprehend *amounts* of evidence is still no evidence at all. We can measure and comprehend the amount of evidence for evolution. The fact that Casey calls it "unfathomable" is just a another way to say, as you point out, 'this is all vague and unquantifiable' ... i.e. smoke and mirrors.
 

There is also the little matter of grammar. Doesn't he mean that 'Some ... discoveries ... show that...?

I know, grammatical construction is infathomable.
 

Doesn't he mean that 'Some ... discoveries ... show that...?

Maybe he meant to capitalize it as in Discovery Institute.

I also wonder why he choose 80 years ... 1932? ... about the time of the neoDarwinian synthesis?
 

Fair's fair, Luskin may lack intellectual weight but he does have the most impressive eyebrows in all of ID.

He also goes on to write:

Whether we're talking about the finely-tuned cosmic architecture of the universe which allows for advanced life, the information-rich, language-based biochemical code filling the genomes of living organisms, or the complex molecular machines which operate inside living cells turning them into miniature factories, life is filled with evidence of design.

We can certainly say that ID is filled with incredulity, analogy and metaphor. What we can't fathom is why the IDiots are so impressed by it.

He also drags out the specter of Hoyle for another airing

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.

This has always struck me as tactically unsound. Hoyle was on the wrong side of a major debate in cosmology. If he could be wrong about something in his own field, why should we be impressed with his views on something in an unrelated field?

And, of course, no reunion of all the old favorites would be complete without - The Lewontin Quote! (You know, if he'd charged a fee for every time that quote was used by ID, he'd be a wealthy man by now)
 

Hoyle was on the wrong side of a major debate in cosmology. If he could be wrong about something in his own field, why should we be impressed with his views on something in an unrelated field?

It's not people with some knowledge of the arguments and the science they are trying to impress. They're aiming at theists who want the comfort that science supports their beliefs without going to the trouble of actually learning anything about it. So, if a famous scientist supports (or can be made to seem to support) their religion, they can turn off their brain and go on believing while ignoring all those atheist Darwinists who say that they aren't God's special pets.
 

Being on the wrong side of an argument in cosmology doesn't make Hoyle a negligible thinker. He had some good arguments. Also his opponents were mostly supporting the simple Einstein cosmology without the cosmological constant (now known as dark energy) so they were wrong too!

Hoyle was a very bright man, and I think anything he said deserves to be taken seriously, even if (as in the fine tuning argument) he turns out to be wrong.
 

Being on the wrong side of an argument in cosmology doesn't make Hoyle a negligible thinker.

No, of course not. On the other hand, Hoyle tilted at more than one imaginary windmill. Beyond panspermia and his 747 argument against evolution, he also tried to show that the Archaeopteryx fossils were fakes, with modern feathers imprinted on thin layers of concrete that had been slathered over the real fossils.

There is a point at which "idiosyncrasy" becomes "crazy".
 

2015-07-14song
chanel online shop
air force pas cher
ralph lauren sale
coach outlet store online
nike blazer high
true religion jeans outlet
cheap ray bans
nike air max uk
pandora jewelry sale
pandora charms
longchamp outlet online
nike pas cher
coach factory
louboutin
ray bans
snapbacks hats
football jerseys
michael kors handbags
prada outlet store
fitflops shoes
polo ralph lauren uk
mcm outlet online
michael kors bags
coach outlet
abercrombie and fitch
coach factory outlet
jordan femme
oakley sunglasses outlet
oakley sunglasses outlet
michael kors watches
kate spade
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags
nike blazer pas cher

 

kate spade outlet
coach outlet online
ugg outlet
ralph lauren
nike blazer
fitflops sale
ugg outlet
boston celtics jersey
michael kors handbags
air jordan 8

 

Il commence par enlever le tissu cicatriciel en adidas zx flux ocean waves pas cher encourageant l'interaction intracellulaire qui permettra au corps humain de reconnaître quelles cellules sont affaiblies et doivent être dissoutes. La cale de transition Midfoot augmente l'efficacité du footstrike. Vous pouvez continuer à garder une personne dans chacune des voitures de vos proches, ou en donner un seul à votre membre de la famille ou votre partenaire. Les emplois à Stockport sont en demande populaire, mais le chaussures nike air max 1 essential taux d'emploi est toujours supérieur à la moyenne nationale à 75,5%. D'autres ont réussi à utiliser les installations d'Internet et à mener des études de marché intelligentes pour s'assurer que l'organisation a réussi à rester en activité. Ils pourraient être utilisés pour traiter les maladies vénériennes lorsqu'ils sont donnés à l'état frais, alors qu'une teinture fabriquée à partir d'eux est utilisée air jordan prix algerie comme sédatif, anesthésique et vulnéraire.