|
Is this the best they can do?
At the Inverted World discussion entitled “Auster’s Folly,” the latest target of which is my article “An absolute refutation of Darwinism,” a commenter writes:
Regarding Auster’s argument: the existence of men and women = evolution is impossible, see “How did male and female evolve, assuming Darwin was correct?”Eager to see how Darwinists explain sexual differentiation, I went to the linked page and found a collection of vapid abstract theorizing from various commenters, none of whom even begin to grapple with the specific problems posed by the supposed Darwinian evolution of sexual differentiation, or—the actual topic of my article—of sexual intercourse and internal fertilization in vertebrates. The only sign of light is a couple of commenters who say we have no idea how it happened. We know that Darwinians live by stories and fables which they call scientific truth. But it would nice to see even a plausible Darwinian fable accounting for the origin of sexual intercourse.
The folks at The Inverted World are really taking me apart. Arminius writes:
Auster doesn’t understand science. He thinks he has all these clever ideas about why evolution can’t explain human life but he hasn’t done any of the hard work researching what the science of evolution can and cannot tell us.So Arminius, who understands science while I don’t, has found an answer to my argument against Darwinism. (My argument, by the way, was not about the evolution of men and women, but about the evolution of reproduction by sexual intercourse and internal fertilization.) I go to the page he links, and I find this:
The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against.This generalized blather is an answer? “There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible.” Oh, it’s possible. Why didn’t I see that before? It’s possible! Therefore it’s true! All challenges to Darwinian evolution are answered by: “A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible.” And remember, Arminius is the guy who understands science, while I don’t. I’ve begun to notice that in arguments over evolution, the Darwinians never have answers themselves. Rather they keep referring you to other sources. Recently I came upon a webpage that professed to refute Ann Coulter’s statement that there is no evidence for the evolution of new species by Darwinian processes. The author went on and on about what an idiot Coulter is, saying that there are tons of evidence supporting Darwinian evolution, hundreds of studies are being published each month. But, in his endless outpouring of scorn against Coulter, he never gave a single bit of evidence or argument proving Darwinian evolution. He just kept referencing other sources that we’re supposed to read. He couldn’t give even one example on his own? Similarly, a commenter at IW, I think it was Jobling, told me to go to some webpage and read the sources that are listed there. It’s a list of books. Jobling wants me to turn into a full-time researcher in evolution. Listen, IW’ers: The burden is not on me to disprove my own argument. I’ve presented my reasons for saying that the Darwinian evolution of reproduction by sexual intercourse and internal fertilization is impossible. Since, as you keep telling me, I don’t know a thing about science, it ought to be easy for you to present material showing my argument is wrong. But you haven’t done that. Also, do I need to remind people that expertise is not what decides a debate, but who has the better argument? I know nothing about military affairs, but for years I was right about the total absence of a military strategy in Iraq that could lead to victory, while all of Bush’s military experts, emitting endless clouds of faith-based blather such as that the holding of an election would lead to the disappearance of the insurgency, were wrong. I’m not claiming any special insight for having seen this. I’m just saying that “experts” are often full of it. The appeal to authority is deeply embedded in the Darwinian mindset. Thus Ian Jobling appealed to the authority of the science of biology, which I am supposedly transgressing by questioning Darwinian evolution. Thus Arminius admits that there are gaps in our knowledge, but then insists that we must believe in Darwinian evolution anyway, because science has answered lots of other questions in the past, and therefore it will answer this question too. In other words, I am supposed to accept Darwinian evolution on faith. (and Arminius is the guy whose comment Ian Jobling specifically directed me to read.) I’m starting to realize that the only argument the IW’ers have is appeal to authority. They think they are men of reason, battling against blind adherence to authority, but they are the very thing they think they are opposing. They also repeatedly mischaracterize my arguments. Thus Arminius says: “BUT, keep in mind that for all the gaps in our knowledge, it is absurd to respond to these gaps by making the argument that gap = G-d.” I’ve never said that a gap proves God. In this discussion, I have not been arguing for the existence of God or of a creative intelligence. I’ve simply said that the evolution of sexual intercourse by Darwinian chance mutations is inherently impossible. That’s all I’ve said. Yet for all the scorn aimed at me by IW, not one commenter has come up with a smidgen of a pretense of a hint of a plausible explanation of how this could have happened. Unless, of course, “A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible,” constitutes such an explanation.
Email entry |