The Darwinian Aquarium Darwinism Jan 152007 I’ve been inspired by this UD post. Related PostsIntelligent Design compared to DarwinismScience Under Fire by Religious DarwiniansPandas takin’ a whuppin’ at Cornell (part 2)When is a Skeptic not a Skeptic?The Stillborn AtheistPoor PZ! He tried. He “really, honestly tried!”Pandas takin’ a whuppin’ at CornellAtheism is Vacuous in Science and HumanityDarwinian Evolution Is Wrong: A Surprising SkepticDarwinian Circular ReasoningThe “Science” of Richard DawkinsDecember 7th…Pearl Harbor Day and God’s SamuraiDarwin’s works archive now onlineSurvival of the What?The Ever Amicable PZ MyersDarwinists will be assimilated to service us!Sam Harris on How to Build a Straw Man and Other FallaciesThe Day of the JackalsWhat is fair for the goose…National Center for Science Education Asked to Spy for the Government According to Congressional Report 8 Responses to “The Darwinian Aquarium” DonaldM says: January 16, 2007 at 4:31 am Hope you remember to zap it with electrical charges from time to time… JoeG says: January 16, 2007 at 1:16 pm The “Darwinian” trinity: Mother Nature, Father Time and the blind watchmaker Note to DonaldM- the tank already has bacteria so zapping it would be a Bozo no-no. Unless you just want to zap the bacteria to see what happens… inunison says: January 16, 2007 at 11:13 pm You guys clearly have no imagination! Being one of the primarily mechanisms of evolution, Imagination is capable of producing all diversity of life. But I don’t expect you IDiots to grasp this pure scientific concept. inunison says: January 16, 2007 at 11:15 pm Sorry primarily should read primary. And by the way this spelling mistake is another proof of RM/NS in action! JoeG says: January 17, 2007 at 4:44 am Oh yeah!!?? Well I have it on my authority that: Definitions: IDist- a person who understands and supports Intelligent Design IDer- an Intelligent Designer IDiot- a person who does not understand ID and chooses misrepresentation and lies in an attempt to refute it. teleologist says: January 17, 2007 at 5:10 am I admit this is the flaw of ID theorists, the lack of imagination and our reliance on empirical facts. Kenneth R. Miller: Anyone can state at any time that they cannot imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure. Such statements, obviously, are personal — and they say more about the limitations of those who make them than they do about the limitations of Darwinian mechanisms. My guess is that this will become the battle cry for the MET-heads. JoeG says: January 17, 2007 at 6:01 am Teleologist: My guess is that this will become the battle cry for the MET-heads. My experience tells me it already is. I am sure inunison’s paradody reflects that (Cue the Stones “Imagination”). inunison says: January 18, 2007 at 3:02 am Hi teleologist, There is another one by Douglas Futuyma, but this time accusing (straw man) creator. Take any major group of animals, and the poverty of imagination that must be ascribed to a Creator becomes evident. Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.