Evolution's Key Argument: Attack Opponent

In late September I spoke with a Christian biologist who believes in macro evolution. This is a man who loves God and is a godly leader in his church. (Of this I have little doubt.) However, I was surprised at how quickly he dismissed the ideas of either creationism or intelligent design as bunk. He said to me that he knew of only one credible scientist who is a "creationist."

Without having much scientific training in the academic sense, I posed to him the questions posed by "intelligent design." The argument from "irreducible complexity" came quickly to mind. He assured me that the questions of irreducible complexity (such as the formation of the eye) are answerable by the method of macro evolution. Yet, surprisingly or not so surprisingly enough he could not explain "scientifically" how the eye could be form by "blind" (ha, ha) and random causes. But that evolution had explained it there was no doubt.

I found that discussion to be disappointing and less than satisfactory. I am still on a quest to find someone who can help me to make sense of how evolutionists justify--logically and scientifically--their position, if they can give any real justification at all.

Can the evolutionists give us more than condescension???

P.Z. Myers is a biologists and an atheists who teaches at the University of Minnesota. He expressed outrage that Ken Ham (founder of Answers In Genesis) led a prayer meeting at our nation's Pentagon this past year. He then went on to do a "little" name calling of the Answers In Genesis founder....

Millions of people, including some of the most knowledgeable biologists in the world, think just about every day that you are an airhead, an ###, a birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a charlatan, a cheat, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a con artist, a crackpot, a crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a dumb-###, a dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fake, a fathead, a fraud, a fruitcake, a gonif, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a jack###, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a mountebank, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a ##########, a numbskull, a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a racketeer, a sap, a scam artist, a screwball, a sham, a simpleton, a snake oil salesman, a thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead, and much, much worse. You're a clueless schmuck who knows nothing about science and has arrogantly built a big fat fake museum to promote medieval bullshit...http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/in_which_i_have_hurt_ken_hams.php

These types of attacks by the evolutionists have been fairly typical. There is a general rule in law that if you cannot attack your opponent's ideas, then attack your opponent. Evolutionists, it seems to me, have been very adept in doing that.