STILL No Nobel Prizes for Anything Dealing with Evolutionism
EvoTARDS are up in arms over the fcat that no one has ever won a Nobel Prize for anything dealing with evolutionism, ie the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
When I stated that over on Dr Hunter's blog Jeffrey Shallit, thorton the thong, jimpithecus and oleg suchajerkoff all chimed in with their ignorant equivocating spewage. They think that any and every time the word "evolution" appears it automatically means evolutionism. Pathetic, uneducated evoTARDs.
So I told them:
Please tell us that has to do with evolutionism, ie blind and undirected chemical processes?Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution so those prizes could be Intelligent Design prizes. Even YEC's baraminology accepts your definition of evolution so those prizes could be baraminology prizes.
Don't you guys ever get tired of equivocating? "Evolution" does not = blind and undirected processes. Only evolutionISM sez evolution proceeds via blind and undirected chemical processes and not one of those prizes had anything to do with that.
For example wrt Watson and Crick, I said:
They did not elucidate the structure of DNA saying "If all of life's diversity owed its collective common ancestry to blind and undirected chemical processes the structure of DNA should be a triple helix, wait, wait, we mean a double helix."
The sad part is even after all of this was explained, that is explained to the point where high scool students understand it, the evoTARDgasms didn't stop. And that is beyond pathetic.