But fails to recognize it. Again.
Just moments ago, the Discovery Institute posted a commentary on a paper that came out some time ago on dog evolution. I wrote about that paper because it made me laugh out loud (LOL). Indeed, I wanted to share this again, so I reposted my earlier post just moments ago.
The new DI post is by Casey Luskin. I've misplaced the URL, sorry. Anyway, it turns out that the Discovery Institute is pretty sure that Artificial Selection is Intelligent Design, with the breeders being the Intelligent Agent. Of course, they are correct. Intelligent Design is real. If you make it up.
(LOL)
Comments
The new DI post is by Casey Luskin. I've misplaced the URL, sorry. Anyway, it turns out that the Discovery Institute is pretty sure that Artificial Selection is Intelligent Design, with the breeders being the Intelligent Agent. Of course, they are correct. Intelligent Design is real. If you make it up.
(LOL)
LOL! Yep, I found the same thing, It is so much easier if you just make it all up! LOL! You don't have to be burdened by trying to remember all those facts and figures! LOL!
Dave Briggs :~)
Posted by: Dave Briggs | December 17, 2007 5:39 PM
?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/proving_evolution_doggybreedin.html
...
It isn't worth publicizing what these cranks have to say about anything as long it remains in their own echo chamber. Just viciously chop them down to size when they manipulate people into repeating their propaganda in more respectable venues (court rooms, school board meetings, letters to the editor of newspapers, and that sort of thing.)
They are like the raelians or the scientologists. Who cares what they say amongst themselves?
Posted by: crf | December 17, 2007 8:24 PM
...unless applied to humans, of course.
Posted by: MartinM | December 18, 2007 7:11 AM
There is yet more irony in the Dishonesty Institute's contentions about animal breeding.
ID claims---and evolutionists would agree---that evolution can produce only small and slow changes, and that only a designer can produce large or sudden changes.
And yet the DI cites as evidence of design that animal breeding and "microevolution" produce only small changes, that we never see, for example, an elephant born of a horse.
The irony seems to escape them that, if intelligent design were true, we would expect to see the occasional elephant born from a horse, and that such a large, sudden change would be the best evidence against evolution.
Seems that even ID's detractors fail to appreciate the extent to which one of its most frequent arguments tends to undercut its own theory.
Posted by: Olorin | December 18, 2007 11:38 AM
Olorin: Excellent point.
Posted by: Greg Laden | December 18, 2007 1:36 PM