Albert Ellis coined the horrid phrase 'musturbation' to refer to the absolutes people impose on life, which then (according to his theory) cause them unneeded misery, but I think it could be better applied to Darwinists and their continual claims that x and y 'must' have been the result of evolution.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Fish chew by sending their food on an assembly line to the back of the mouth. Mammals chew by positioning food for the teeth. Can evolution explain this difference? Science Daily was sure of it.
''The difference in chewing shows that animals have changed the way they chew and digest their food and that evolution must have played a role.'' [1.]
- The author has no right to say evolution 'must' have played a role. He can't possibly know this. If he wanted to be accurate and honest he would write; ''If we accept evolution as a fact, evolution must have have played a role." ie. his claim is only as true as evolutionary theory; it's not an independent fact, but only a deduction from a system.
I'm tired of evolutionists excusing this kind of fallacy by dismissing it as merely writing in a popular style. If scientists want special respect, then they should they deserve it by writing in a careful, logically valid manner. e.g. a theoretical opinion should never be stated as a fact. (In this case, no one observed the claim that is made; therefore it cannot ever be a fact.)
Why 'must' evolution have played a role? Because we know evolution is true. As usual, evolution is used to to prove evolution.
Notes;
1. Chewing on Evolutionary Stories - Creation/Evolution Headlines July 03
2. One wonders what the author meant when he claimed 'evolution' must have played a role in the difference chewing methods. What exactly is the definition of evolution that he's using? Are we supposed to just guess? The vagueness of the term makes it sorely lacking in content.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
