Every time a scientist creates something in the lab that supports evolution, creationists consistently call foul, claiming the mere involvement of intelligent people voids the results, since they were the result of an intelligence. Yet then they turn around and claim that they'll believe us if we create a life form from scratch in the lab. Nina May's comment is typical:
"So where did it begin, and if it was as simple as a big bang, then recreate it. If man really did evolve from an ameba [sic]. . . a simple one celled creature, then certainly he should be able to make a man from one today. With all the science, the technology, the internet, and the huge crowd of followers desperate to prove there is no God and that man, in his total stupidity, really thinks he can become one, then prove it."
Never mind the idiocy of the argument that man should be able to recreate anything nature can do. Can you say "hurricane"? Earthquake? Please.
But really, would you guys please get together and tell us which it is? Half of you are telling us that any lab experiment is tainted with intelligence, the other half are demanding we get into the lab and prove our point. Which is it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"But really, would you guys please get together and tell us which it is? Half of you are telling us that any lab experiment is tainted with intelligence, the other half are demanding we get into the lab and prove our point. Which is it?"
I would add that a similar lack of convergence exists in the atheist community, although certainly not to the degree found in religion. For example, some atheists engage the 'non-historical Jesus' trope, others do not. Which is it?
I tend to agree that the impending successful abiogenesis experiments are more supportive of special creation than unguided, naturalistic descent from a LUCA.
Apples and oranges. Whether or not there was a historical Jesus is a factual matter, and among thinking people, there are always going to be disagreements on such things. FWIW, I this atheist thinks there was such a man.
The situation with the IDers attitudes about experiments is just a case of taking whatever side one thinks benefits one's argument, especially considering that many IDers take both positions at various times, depending on who they are arguing with.
"The situation with the IDers attitudes about experiments is just a case of taking whatever side one thinks benefits one's argument, especially considering that many IDers take both positions at various times, depending on who they are arguing with."
Spot-on. And there is a distinction between your example and mine: Most atheists don't simultaneously argue both sides of the 'historical Jesus' trope.
Post a Comment