Selective Criticism of "Quote Games"
Another remarkable thing about the video,
is that the narrator, after having made such a fuss about "quote-mining",
is absolutely adamant about his own quotation games.
He repeatedly "quotes" unknown, unidentified 'opponents',
but refuses to accept objections by posters that these are contrived,
or that he is himself engaging in "straw-man" arguments.
He explains that its okay for him to use "quote-marks",
because he is using them 'legally', as indicators of an idea unders discussion only:
Of course few opponents (or even neutral parties) are going to buy this kind of obfuscation.
Anyone can make up "quotes", leave them vague and general, fail to identify where they came from,
and tar all opponents as if they themselves had said or would have said same.
Our biggest objection here however, isn't that the narrator is playing as many games
as any professional debater or snake-oil salesman,
but that we have been gypped again:
This isn't science, scientific method, or even "Evolution-Science".
This is debating about debating. The video-maker has really misled us,
and wasted precious time.
In both the original video, and in the subsequent "rebuttal",
he has literally spent most of his time
wasting time on trivialities,
and debate-points, rather than on science.
We expected and wanted serious criticism of
Intelligent Design,
and accurate discussion of the scientific methodology which would
settle the issues.
Instead we got more propaganda from the Evolution Propaganda people.
We asked for silver.
They showed us silver-plate.
=======================
"Eye Opening Evolution"
Immediately after whining about Darwin misquotes,
the narrator plunges into a sketch of how the eye could have evolved.
Naturally its vague, dubious, and oversimplified.
His main point (in order to support Darwin's original conjecture),
is that the eye, with its complex parts could have evolved in stages,
as each smaller advance gave the creature better survival and reproductive chances in a process of Natural Selection.
His attitude is that this sketchy sketch is more than enough to "refute" opponents,
and silence Darwin's critics regarding the plausibility of "eye-evolution".
Of particular interest is his illustration of at least four of perhaps six 'main steps' in a gradual evolution process:
(1) A proto-eye, consisting of a simple patch of light-sensitive cells
(2) A curved-cup shape, allowing detection of light-direction.
(3) A 'pin-hole' camera overgrowth, giving a real 'image-projection, presumably allowing also the development of processing circuits...
(4) A simple lens, formed originally of mucus, hardening into translucent tissue.
In support of his thesis, he points to species of animals in each of these stages of 'development':
Of course several issues, difficulties, objections can be made in opposition to this hypothesis.
(1) These modern creatures certainly didn't literally evolve from one another. Each must be a speciating branch of an evolutionary tree. What was the
real multi-stage process of "eye-evolution"?
(2) Why are some species apparently back at the very beginning of biological time in their (arrested) development, while others (mammals etc.) have the most advanced optical systems?
(3) What possible processes could have created the Information System which is fundamental to the complex optical systems of higher animals?
The narrator objects that critics and opponents demand too much from the
hypothesis. That the model is by nature a mere sketch, lacking in the
rich detail of the historical reality:
He complains that it is a "no win" situation, since for every 'missing-link' provided,
there will be another 'gap' to explain, between the new steps in the step-list.
Like the famous puzzle of Hercules and the many-headed hydra,
its an impossible task, if two heads grow back for every one cut off.
We can allow for and somewhat sympathize for the video-maker's plight:
A theory of this kind must necessarily start sketchy, and be filled in with
extended efforts of scientific investigation.
But the real point is that again the Evolutionist protests too much.
Don't bewail and lament because a sketch isn't a theory at all, perhaps not even a hypothesis,
and then turn around and claim its not only 'plausible' but somehow must be true.
Its just sketch. A child's drawing; the beginning of a hunch, a hypothesis.
Its not a convincing scientific theory, and it should never be presented as such.
Worse than all this, the narrator continues to beg the question:
Whether the eye evolved or not is the issue of contention.
Its not an assumption or axiom, either in the case of advanced optical systems,
or even in the simplest of light-sensitive structures.
Any or all of these devices could be pre-coded in genetic information,
or simply created in a lab.
