Posted: Jul 28, 2010 12:44 pm
Yes, he has this weird upside-down approach to the subject where everyone else is under an obligation to "prove" evolution to him by answering his endless amounts of strawman questions. Completely missing the fact that just because he can't figure out how evolution accounts for the origin and subsequent evolution of biological entity X, it doesn't logically follow that noone can.
He never even poses a flat question like, "How could X have evolved?" it always come with some factually incorrect, underlying assumtion about how evolution could evolve entity X by route Z?
Every time, he has to squeeze in that "by route Z" assumption, which is the very fact that keeps demonstrating he is purposefully misrepresenting evolution.
He says he's intelligent, I actually think he is. It takes an actual understanding of the real evolutionary postulates to consistently misrepresent them without exception.
If someone was just plain ignorant of some arbitrary scientific explanation, they would at least allow the possibility that the explanation is not what they think it is. Not with SteeveBeee. Now with that new blog page of his you have linked, he has effectively also ruled out the ability for us to tell him why he is incorrect, in that he will now constantly victimize himself with claims of accusations of lack of education or intelligence.
In the very few cases where he has been pressed into even allowing us to answer a flat question, or he mistakenly has asked a question in a fashion that actually fits with evolutionary postulates, he just instinctively reverts to The William Dembski approach to scientific observation and evidencetm: It's never enough.
A common tactic employed by ID propotents when supplied with empirical evidence, is to just revert to flatly proclaiming : It's too impropable to have happened by chance or, that only makes sense in the light of guided design.
I'm beginning to think many of the individuals we get here and I see involved in ID/creo vs Evolution debates around the net have all taken some special class in debating evolution where they learn a number of reflex responses. It's always the same crap they peddle, in the same order the arguments come, and the same response they all have to the refutations.
1. Ask for evidence.
2. Proclaim impropability.
3. Assert design.
4. Move a step down(as in closer towards a complete subatomic account of events) in detail level and repeat the list in the same order.
I swear, it is the exact same approach every time. There must exist some Dembski/Behe approved manual to manufacturing scientific controversy they are all attending courses in following somewhere. Perhaps you need to be a trusted member of some Discovery Institute daughter organization or something. It's the same level of crap they have employed in the past.
He never even poses a flat question like, "How could X have evolved?" it always come with some factually incorrect, underlying assumtion about how evolution could evolve entity X by route Z?
Every time, he has to squeeze in that "by route Z" assumption, which is the very fact that keeps demonstrating he is purposefully misrepresenting evolution.
He says he's intelligent, I actually think he is. It takes an actual understanding of the real evolutionary postulates to consistently misrepresent them without exception.
If someone was just plain ignorant of some arbitrary scientific explanation, they would at least allow the possibility that the explanation is not what they think it is. Not with SteeveBeee. Now with that new blog page of his you have linked, he has effectively also ruled out the ability for us to tell him why he is incorrect, in that he will now constantly victimize himself with claims of accusations of lack of education or intelligence.
In the very few cases where he has been pressed into even allowing us to answer a flat question, or he mistakenly has asked a question in a fashion that actually fits with evolutionary postulates, he just instinctively reverts to The William Dembski approach to scientific observation and evidencetm: It's never enough.
A common tactic employed by ID propotents when supplied with empirical evidence, is to just revert to flatly proclaiming : It's too impropable to have happened by chance or, that only makes sense in the light of guided design.
I'm beginning to think many of the individuals we get here and I see involved in ID/creo vs Evolution debates around the net have all taken some special class in debating evolution where they learn a number of reflex responses. It's always the same crap they peddle, in the same order the arguments come, and the same response they all have to the refutations.
1. Ask for evidence.
2. Proclaim impropability.
3. Assert design.
4. Move a step down(as in closer towards a complete subatomic account of events) in detail level and repeat the list in the same order.
I swear, it is the exact same approach every time. There must exist some Dembski/Behe approved manual to manufacturing scientific controversy they are all attending courses in following somewhere. Perhaps you need to be a trusted member of some Discovery Institute daughter organization or something. It's the same level of crap they have employed in the past.