Agreed that Dr. Dino is a quack, serving up "science" with generous helpings of blind
faith and untestable assertions. It's hardly worth
even a comment. And, as with so many others in the tradition of Archbishop Ussher, who established creation at 4004 BCE, no actual evidence of the
event is offered. Certainly, such a significant event would leave at least some kind of trace? Even details such as the eye
would bear the
impressions of an intelligent designer.
"Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the
signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get
to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of
accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process [of evolution]."
is from a very well-written article, "Show Me the Science," providing great refutations of creationism.
"To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent
design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement,
claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent
designer might be...
"It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of substantive scientific controversies in biology that are not yet in the textbooks or the
classrooms. The scientific participants in these arguments vie for acceptance among the relevant expert communities in peer-reviewed journals, and the
writers and editors of textbooks grapple with judgments about which findings have risen to the level of acceptance - not yet truth - to make them
worth serious consideration by undergraduates and high school students.
"SO get in line, intelligent designers. Get in line behind the hypothesis that life started on Mars and was blown here by a cosmic impact. Get in
line behind the aquatic ape hypothesis, the gestural origin of language hypothesis and the theory that singing came before language, to mention just a
few of the enticing hypotheses that are actively defended but still insufficiently supported by hard facts...
"For now, though, the theory they are promoting is exactly what George Gilder, a long-time affiliate of the Discovery Institute, has said it is:
"Intelligent design itself does not have any content."