Neil Rickert- Ignorant or just Plain Stupid?
-
Neil Rickert- a person I have come to know on blogs- a person who doesn't seem to understand anything about science nor the theory of evolution.
Neil has a blog post in which he sez that Creationsists made-up the part about Darwinism "is intended, more than anything else, to demonstrate that teleology, or purpose, can be eliminated from our theoretical understanding of the living world".
Earth to Neil- read "On the Origins of Species..." by Charles Darwin. The whole purpose of that book was to take teleology out of biology. Natural selection was Darwin's designer-mimic, Neil.
Neil also sez that mechanistic explanations are more useful for the scientist (than teleology).
What does that even mean? Does that mean teleology cannot be mechanistic?
Are non-telic explanations more useful to scientists even when non-telic processes could not account for what we are investigating?
But anyway Neil bloviates about Creationists' strawman version of the toE but he never really says what it is nor does he provide any evidence to support his claim of a strawman- typical for a cowardly evoTARD.
And Neil- scientists do not know if they observe random genetic changes. They just speculate they are random because the scientists are basically ignorant.
Neil Rickert- a person I have come to know on blogs- a person who doesn't seem to understand anything about science nor the theory of evolution.
Neil has a blog post in which he sez that Creationsists made-up the part about Darwinism "is intended, more than anything else, to demonstrate that teleology, or purpose, can be eliminated from our theoretical understanding of the living world".
Earth to Neil- read "On the Origins of Species..." by Charles Darwin. The whole purpose of that book was to take teleology out of biology. Natural selection was Darwin's designer-mimic, Neil.
Neil also sez that mechanistic explanations are more useful for the scientist (than teleology).
What does that even mean? Does that mean teleology cannot be mechanistic?
Are non-telic explanations more useful to scientists even when non-telic processes could not account for what we are investigating?
But anyway Neil bloviates about Creationists' strawman version of the toE but he never really says what it is nor does he provide any evidence to support his claim of a strawman- typical for a cowardly evoTARD.
And Neil- scientists do not know if they observe random genetic changes. They just speculate they are random because the scientists are basically ignorant.
posted by Joe G @ 9:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home