Mark Vulatic’s “A Critique of Michael Denton’s, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

Chapter II "Assaulting the Evolutionary Process."

It always amazes me, how the educated fools of this world can sound so eloquent and intelligent, when presenting an argument. However, when one scratches below the carefully chosen big words, and the so called “empirical evidence,” they really have very little to say that is convincing.

Mark uses a most pathetic analogy of a watch changing gradually over time, from analog to digital.
The analogy is absurd, because a watch is a created device involving a designer. Some one, would have to make a smaller cog, and place it carefully into the device, so as not to harm it. The idea of morphing the watch into a digital form is even more ridiculous, because that would involve encoded language and intelligent design.

Perhaps Mr.Vuletic, would just be foolish enough to believe that such a device, (a watch transitioning from analog to digital,) could actually just happen by natural means. It would be on a par with his other absurd evolutionary views.

If he wants to be believable then he must produce an analogy which does not involve an artifact that has a designer. We need that, if we are to gain the incredible insight that he has, concerning mindless chaos producing order and cognition, in staggering levels of complexity. We need a good analogy so that we get it, like he does.

Of course it would be impossible to find something that wasn’t designed by someone, unless Mark uses biologically/naturally produced artifacts. However, this takes us right back to the absurdity of his position that while everything in our world involves a designer, nature itself, just occurred.

-DM-

Mark Vuletic responds:

---------

Once we excise all of the childish insults and empty assertions from Ron's letter, all that remains is the apparent belief on his part that the case for evolution somehow hinges upon my analogy about reproducing watches (not real-world watches, which, unlike biological organisms, cannot reproduce--an important qualification which Ron appears to have ignored). That this is not the case should be apparent to anyone who has ever read anything about evolution. The purpose of all of my analogical talk was to point out a flaw in an abortive analogical argument against evolution by Michael Denton, in which he points to problems in the stepwise changes of words as a disproof of the possibility of biological evolution. If Ron wants to throw out all analogical reasoning and stick to pure data, that's fine with me--none of Ron's insults or assertions can change the fact that the data clearly points towards evolution, and his decision to harp on a single, rather unimportant analogy, while ignoring everything else in my review, only confirms this.

Mark

Lisa

For nature to just "occur" is absurd. You may not know a lot about the complexity of the natural world, starting with a molecule or a cell....................If you did you would realize[unless you did not want to. It is always easiest to fool oneself] that nothing in this existence just "occurs" .....Lisa


hadelerl@castleberryisd.net

-DM-

[Copied here from Feedback to facilitate further discussion. -Don-]

Jobar

Lisa
IIDB Junior User

Registered: January 2003
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 0

Zero posts? Is this a glitch in vB, or what?

RufusAtticus

Good thing that both evolution and abiogenesis have natural mechanisms associated with them.