Apparently the main evolutionist argument is, "Disagreein' with me is just like disagreein' with peer reviewed science. It has all been reviewed by some peers, who took a peer at it."
This one is a little ironic, as there is a difference between what goes on PBS and other popularizers of the mythological narratives of Naturalism and what is actually based on scientific literature. I've read my fair share of peer reviewed literature. Some of it is good, some bad. It doesn't seem to me that it is some gospel that can be thumped as much as the thumpers thump it. There are not that many scripts based on Naturalism dealing with origins that can be treated as some sort of Scripture about origins.
Evolutionists often shift away from dealing with origins entirely to talking about protists revealing the roots of multicellularity or bird flu instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment