How many anti-evolutionists here have read "The Blind Watchmaker"?

Question

...or any other serious evolutionary material not written by Creationists? If you have, did it at least change what you understand evolutionary theory says?

whirlingmerc, how did you determine "The Blind Watchmaker" does not address irreducible complexity without actually reading the book? In fact, it does.

Answer 1

I weep for the future. The answers here are appalling. Do these people glue birdhouses together for a living? I'm just amazed that this level of ignorance is possible in this day and age.

Answer 2

Any paper revealed by using a scientist is peer reviewed by using different scientist who're attempting to disprove it. O.ok. you purchased me. i do no longer have a 20ft diameter telescope, a 10 GeV cyclotron or an X-ray crystallography scanner in my decrease back backyard. yet i do not favor to. because even as someone comes alongside and proposes that the DNA molecule is a double-helix formation, they submit the coaching that delivered them to that determination, different scientists evaluation it, and repeat their experiments and both refute it or make certain it. it truly is what you do not realize. i'd no longer be checking clinical claims, yet different scientists are. So, both technology is ideal, as perfect it may tell, or there's a huge conspiracy of tens of millions of human beings coming up fake information that has lasted the finest 500 twelve months or so. And all of it hangs jointly - especially a lot. right here's the different enormous difference . . . If some college positioned up-grad does some try that proves Einstein incorrect - then Einstein changed into incorrect. even with the certainty that new theory emerges can ought to account for why he gave the impression to be actual, yet he will nonetheless were incorrect, and after a twelve months ot 2 with scientist bickering about try technique, mistakes in technique etc. they're going to settle for the information. In theology the arguments only go on and on and on. traditionally until eventually one part kills each and every of the others. technology is in preserving with information - no longer blind faith. I believe technology because it has shown itself to be honest. I ignore faith because it has shown itself to be untrustworthy. and that is a certainty, no matter if you wish it or no longer, no matter if you ignore it or no longer, no matter if you kick and scream and pound your fists on the floor in anger or no longer.

Answer 3

interesting you seem to site creationist material as biased and ofer a book written by a fairly rabid aethist... hmm... very even handed of you

the Blind Watchmaker does not address serious works like
In the Beginning was information by Gitt or the problems of irreducable complexity. The work on the RATE project is substantian. Work on the Ice age by Oard. work on plate techtonics by Baumgartner all substantial

I definately recommand twatching he DVD Lucy She's no Lady by Menton and seeing if you feel the fossil evidense presented to you about the Lucy fossil was one sided and fairly pressented

Answer 4

Anti-evolutionists don't change their mind due to anything as flimsy as fact. They prefer to base their beliefs on the rock solid ground of superstition.

Answer 5

1st - no creationists wrote evolutionary material.

Nothing I read about eveolution will change the fact that evolution is just theory that has absolutely no scientific proof to it.

Answer 6

I read the Mute Evangelist... it was a much better book!

Answer 7

I have. But I'm a post-Darwinian evolutionist.

Answer 8

Everyone knows that creationist don't know how to read.

Answer 9

Ha! Stoopid! Don't you know evolution is a religion, not a fact?
Just because there's all that so-called EVIDENCE that shows it to be true, doesn't mean it is! My sky pixie told me so!(/sarcasm)

Answer 10

Oh, you must be joking... they wouldn't read any book that doesn't begin with 'b' and end with 'ible'...