[Quoting me] And your argument isn’t really a scientific argument at all, but an atheological argument dressed up in pumps and a wing [sic].
“Well, how about this? I've laid out the best case that ID Creationists can come up with, and point-by-point rebuttals and refutations of the claims.”
i) Since this thread was never about ID theory, your “rebuttal” is irrelevant.
But your diversionary tactics are duly noted.
ii) Please forgive me if I don’t think that Danny is the most reliable source of information when it comes to presenting the “best case” for ID theory.
“I wouldn't even dirty my brain with reading YEC stuff.”
Danny is like the cardinals who refused to peer into Galileo’s telescope for fear it would destroy their faith.
Nothing quite like self-reinforcing prejudice. Secular ignorance is bliss.
“Yes, that's an ‘unequal bias’. I'll gladly admit that my free time won't be wasted reading the PRATTs and canards of young-earth creationism.”
i) The only canard is the evasive maneuver of trying to change the subject of the thread to a debate over ID or YEC.
ii) If you click on his link, it will take you to an article at www.talkorigins.org.
How coincidental! In my reply to the Evangelutionist, I also linked to an article from talkorigins.org on ice core dating techniques. So it’s not as if I got my supporting material for “reading YEC stuff.”
[Quoting me]: As such, naturalistic evolution isn’t even a live option, although we can still debate the point. Do you have an argument to show that evolutionary psychology does not commit intellectual suicide?
“Do you have an argument that it does? You presups always get things arse-backwards. The burden is on the claimant, pal. The question of whether evolution is ‘truth-directed’ or ‘survival-directed’ does not impinge upon an argument that natural processes cannot produce a brain that processes reality and uses logic. Survival is logic-dependent, after all. Is that so hard to see? Brains that don't comport with reality, and logical truths, won't be likely to survive long, will they? Illogical brain: Water or poison, doesn't matter which I drink! Tools, what the crap are they? What for? Survival fitness?”
Do I have an argument that it does?
i) Apparently, Mr. Morgan suffers from the premature onset of senile dementia. I’ve posted quite a bit of material on the self-refuting scepticism implicit in evolutionary psychology.
ii) Danny is raising a stock argument in favor of evolutionary psychology, as if no one had ever heard of this argument before, must less addressed it.
But Plantinga, for one, responded to that argument years ago. Evidently, this is another instance in which Danny can’t “dirty his brain” by consulting the standard literature from the opposing side.
Daniel is the secular equivalent of an Appalachian snake-handler.
iii) Dr. Anderson just posted a meticulously reasoned and well-documented essay on some of the fundamental problems with evolutionary psychology:
iv) And it isn’t just us Christians who have made that point. A number of high-profile Darwinians have admitted that natural selection selects for false beliefs.
Not only is Daniel too much of a secular fundy to keep up with our side of the argument, but his hillbilly atheism inhibits him from keeping tabs on his own side of the argument. I’m afraid all that evolutionary moonshine softens the brain.
v) Needless to say, the Darwinian has his own burden of proof, pal.
“You've basically rambled on and on about the faulty idea that fangs and claws and strength shrank before brainpower and socialization and tool-making had adequately developed.”
No, I didn’t make that claim. What I instead said is that given, on evolutionary grounds, there is a transition from one to the other, the onus is on the Darwinian to show that there was no fatal gap from the possession of a natural defense mechanism to the possession of a compensatory adaptation.
“Is that idea evidenced? No.”
He then links to an article that supposedly justifies the negation. Among other things, the article says the following:
“Chimpanzees in West Africa living under natural conditions habitually use stone tools as hammers and anvils (Box 1). Therefore, because Pan and hominins are almost certainly sister clades, it is probable that the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans
used stones as tools, though they may not have intentionally modified them
Are hammers and anvils a match for fangs and claws?
Perhaps Danny could be kind enough to link us to some footage in which chimps in the wild repel a leopard or pride of lions by throwing hammers and anvils at them.
“But don't ever let facts get in the way of a good speculation.”
Ah, yes, the “facts”! The “facts” in contrast to “speculation”!
And when we go to the link provided, what are the “facts”?
“Finding out what early hominins actually did and how they acted are tricky tasks, particularly since it is difficult to imagine what the landscape might have been like hundreds of thousands—or even millions—of years ago. While the fragmentary remains of the past are ingeniously interpreted by researchers, additional information is often required to corroborate some of the conjectures that arise.”
“Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary composition, although direct evidence of meat-eating is rarely found. Instead, meat-eating has been inferred from many different sources. One source is through the interpretation of the presence and quantity of different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of hominin occupation). High densities of bones found in association with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and consumption of carcasses took place at these sites. However, interpretation of this information can often be misleading, particularly if taphonomy (the study of how archaeological sites are formed) has not been adequately investigated.”
Good thing that our man Daniel refuses to indulge in speculation. No, he is, instead, a man committed to the facts and nothing but the facts.
“Facts” defined in such factual terms as “tricky” facts, “fragmentary” facts, “ingeniously interpreted” facts, and “conjectural” facts—not to mention “misleading” facts.
Thank you, Daniel, for saving us from perils of “speculation.”
Oh, and one more fact from the same source: “The earliest stone tools—large, rough-hewn pebbles called Oldowan tools—appear in the fossil record at about 2.5 mya.”
Now that pretty well cinches the argument for Danny, don’t you think?
I mean, if flicking “rough-hewn pebbles” at a Saber-tooth tiger isn’t your idea of a foolproof defense-mechanism, then you’ve obviously been spending way too much time in church.