Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Esquilax]

Its a mechanistic process that appears not to be able to come into existence without substantive involvement of an intellect. Again I challenge....replicate natural evolution without substantive involvement of an intellect. Can't do it? How about show me evolutionary systems coming into existence without the involvement of an intellect? Can you do that at least?

You now have exactly two options: you can either accept that all natural evolution is evolution without the involvement of an intellect (until such an intellect can be demonstrated behind it, of course), or you can assert that natural evolution is the product of an intellect too, whereupon you are begging the question until you can demonstrate that intellect.

Which will you choose; honesty, or the fallacy?

Every natural phenomena we observe today, we can observe an example of that phenomena coming into existence without an intellect. Want to observe a tornado come into existence without an intellect, park your ass in Kansas for a bit. Where on earth do you go to observe an evolutionary system come into existence?....You have to go to where intellects are making them because they just don't come into existence on their own. Now you would have me believe this one system did come into existence without substantive involvement of an intellect? Why should I believe that?

If you want to see an evolutionary process without an intellect behind it, just go watch any non-domesticated animal breed.

Unless, that is, you want to start begging the question.

To be absolutely clear here, we don't have to run, because you aren't chasing us. If you want to assert that evolution in the natural world is the result of an intelligence, you'd better damn well start demonstrating that if you want us to treat it like a problem. Otherwise, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.