Fredrik
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,912
This is what I meant when I called your arguments "irrational" earlier. You simply assume that the experts on evolution must be right about how to apply terms from mathematics ("random") and physics ("deterministic") to their own area of expertise, and that actual arguments are irrelevant. This position is irrational. The fact that you keep mentioning Michael Behe is even worse. It's right up there with "Oh, you like chocolate. Hitler did that too."The vast majority of people on this post agree as well as the writers of the Science article, Richard Dawkins and all experts in the field of evolution. Mijo and Jimbob, however, seem bent on convincing themselves and others that it's meaningful to call it random. Oddly enough, Intelligent Design proponent, Michael Behe, has this same quirk. No matter what you say or how many experts tell them that they are being unclear and misleading, they still insist on calling evolution random.
Saying that evolution is "not random" is still just as misleading as saying that it's "random", and this discussion is still pointless. It would make much more sense to debate how to answer a creationist that says something like "the theory of evolution says that all of this just randomly appeared". That's they sort of thing a creationist would say, and just saying that "evolution is not random" is obviously not a good answer. My answer would probably start with "You obviously have no idea what the theory says, so stop pretending that you do". Then I'd explain what it actually says. (I'd probably also have to explain what a theory is). There's no need to include a statement like "evolution is not random" in the explanation.
Last edited: