1.4 Designs On The Paradigm
Last modified 07/04/2008
|
Darwin set himself up for a considerable fall with his overemphasis on
natural selection. And in the drama of religion and science or secularism
Darwinists became
caught with a weak hand, one that left the various factions of the design
holdouts licking their chops at the prospect of a comeback Clearly Darwin's
demonstration was no such thing, and the proponents of design quickly seized on
the many discrepancies of theory that haunted natural selection. A typical
example is the classic observation of Fred Hoyle that natural selection couldn't
resolve the statistical implausibility of its claims, and that a blind mechanism
of chance simply couldn't foot the bill. The debate over this simple fact has,
in a way, been aggravated by the tenacity of religious design proponents,
because the alternatives are most probably a false dualism. The designists,
themselves with stars in their eyes, sensed that if natural selection failed,
then .. well, then what? Then, modernity was a mistake, and... But the wish
fulfillment of a theory that delivered secularists to the promised land beyond
the clutches of 'dratted divinity' seemed to overpower their scientific
objectivity, next to the tendency to 'buy into' the design proponents' false
dualism. That biology wasn't physics, and that 'design', perfectly natural in
its manifestations, was an aspect of simple molecules, that were not actually
all that simple, in combinations of DNA, undergoing clear development sequences,
should have demanded a distinction between 'natural design' as a fact, as
opposed to the often ambiguous claims of designists that 'design' was prima
facie evidence of a 'designer'.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||