As it was a week ago in Discoveroids Present a Brain-Bending Argument, so it is today. At the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog they are once again praising Brazilian chemist Marcos Eberlin. Klinghoffer has just written Marcos Eberlin on Debating Evolutionists. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Do you ever wonder what Darwin proponents would say if they ventured to address arguments for intelligent design in detail? Do they ever?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Do Darwin proponents ever dare to address the Discoveroids’ arguments? Think about it, dear reader. Who would ever attempt such a thing? We can’t think of anyone. After that stunning beginning, Klinghoffer says:
I asked Brazilian chemist Marcos Eberlin to comment based on his own experiences. He was in Seattle to speak about his new book, Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose. [Published by the Discovery Institute!]
Ooooooooooooh! The great man was in Seattle. How did he answer the question? Klinghoffer tells us:
Of course, sometimes evolutionists do debate about specifics. [They gotta be crazy to do that!] But remember what happened when they came after Michael Behe on polar bear genes and other matters in his book Darwin Devolves. [Link omitted.]
Actually, we don’t remember what happened. No problem — Klinghoffer informs us:
Find the archives of that debate here, [Link omitted.] including Behe’s exchanges with Richard Lenski, Nathan Lents, and others. As Eberlin observes, for Darwinists, the “devil is in the details” and they fear the devil.
Ooooooooooooh! We don’t want to mess with that ol’ devil! Klinghoffer continues:
Come to think of it, that metaphor may not be the very best, but you get the point.
Yeah, we get it. Let’s read on:
They greatly prefer to argue at the level of generalities, insults, or empty claims of “consensus,” because when you get down into the finer points, they sense that they can’t win.
He’s right. We know when we’re whipped. And now we come to the end:
Eberlin recalls here [podcast embedded in Klinghoffer’s post] the story of how one seemingly robust scientific “consensus” dissolved, revealing how fragile it always was.
We haven’t looked at the Eberlin podcast, but there’s been no shortage of Superseded theories in science. Evolution isn’t one of them, however.
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.