Note to self: Toss out dictionary
Recently, we looked at the way Richard Dawkins made Darwinian evolution sound so easy that people who don’t want to do much thinking—but do want to feel up-to-date—embraced it.
And it has been easy for them to persecute dissenters with a good conscience because, in fairness, most of them never had enough real grasp of the issues to understand why there could be any dissent. Or sufficient curiosity to wonder.
A great package, if you like, for union science teachers, especially “aren’t I good?” girls.
Much of that has to do with Dawkins’ skill with language, which is not at all the same thing as having correct information or great ideas. But it usually passes for such, at least for a while. And the literati just love it. With a good model, they can write without thinking.
Anyway, Laszlo Bencze writes to note the growing use of the word “evolved” to mean “exists”:
If evolution is the only way to understand the presence of life on earth then of course the existence of any living thing proves evolution took place. That’s why all those nature shows on TV no longer say that something “exists” or “can be found” or “is” but rather that it “evolved” to be where and what it is. This mind trick has become so all pervasive that evolutionists truly do not understand why they are being called on the carpet for their circular argumentation. Their logic faculties are damaged yet they believe them to be unimpaired. This lack of understanding leads to much frustration in the evolutionary camp. They no longer can see the fundamental fallacies that undergird their world view.
They don’t teach grammar in schools anymore, so any attempt to explain that “evolved” is not equivalent to “exists” (it assumes an unstated history) will likely be met with blank looks and charges of committing a microaggression.
Valedictorian: “She made me feel bad because I don’t understand the difference! That’s injustice! I only need to understand the sort of drivel that attracts Sokal hoaxes in the journals of my field!
Always remember Dawkins’s guiding words about Darwinism, that shaped many a career:
“My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” — p. 287, Blind Watchmaker” (1986)
See also: What the fossils told us in their own words (Different from pop science TV)
For fun: Life at Asshat U
Follow UD News at Twitter!