Jack Scanlan, Australian blogger and contributor to Darwinist group blog Panda’s Thumb, picks up on Casey Luskin’s comments here about anti-ID rhetoric and adds an unintentionally humorous suggestion for ID critics.
Giberson and Collins appeal to authority but admit the evidence is all that matters, claim that anti-Darwin literature uses “outdated” arguments when their own book uses outdated arguments for evolution, and Giberson lacks the same qualifications of those Darwin-doubting scientists whose qualifications he attacks. Why are they making these weak, non-scientific, and self-contradictory arguments?
Presto chango–evolution sounds so easy! But according to Darwin, evolution requires more than just “enough generations.” Darwin acknowledged that evolution also requires a continuous evolutionary pathway.
When most people hear “Neanderthal,” they think of a primitive caveman-like prehuman brute. What many don’t realize is that this popular view is very much a Darwinian interpretation, and it is betrayed by much evidence.
Without evidence to back up their argument, it seems that Giberson and Collins simply want us to take their evolutionary claims about the power of mutation on faith.