(May 20, 2016 at 9:22 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:AAA Wrote:
Not intelligently designed, and Dawkins carefully explained it gives the appearance of design, not actual design. There are problems of language when an insensate natural process results in features that look designed but the word implies intention when natural algorithms in play have no intention. To use that linguistic imprecision to generate an equivalency between 'design' as used by Dawkins and 'design' as used by the Discovery Institute is a Fallacy of Equivocation.
And it's on purpose, and it's not the first time he's done it:
Direct quote from AAA out of the most recent "Intelligent Design" thread back in November:
"It isn't without evidence. Did you read the last response where I listed many intricate systems? Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't at least give the appearance of design? Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that life gives the appearance of being designed for a purpose. He just thinks that this is an illusion. It is not irrational or an assertion to say that the appearance of design may be due to the fact that it was designed. Why do I have to do mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusion to try to find some other answer that may or may not exist?"
He knows exactly what he's doing.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
