Aside from this person's lack of understanding, I see nothing significant in this article. Here are a few of his logical errors:
"The woodpecker is uniquely and specially constructed," for example.
-Bassett approaches the woodpecker assuming it has been 'constructed.' Logical derivation, of course, is that some "constructor" exists.
"Evolutionists would like us to believe that the (woodpecker is) ...the end-result of millions of years of blind, unguided chance-mutations."
-A theory that requires no divine intervention is, PER SE, "blind" and "unguided." Can a phenomenon be "blind" and "unguided" if there is no one to "see" and "guide"? (Evolutionary theory does not rule out divine creation, but its ability to explain life without including divine creation pushes a lot of buttons.)
"The fact of the matter is that in an irreducibly complex system, nothing works until everything works."
Evolutionary theory does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, though most creationists would have us believe otherwise.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
"Its incredible design is evidence, not of the cruel, mindless process of evolution, but of a loving, all-wise and intelligent Creator God."
Again, Bassett is working from an assumption of a divine 'mind' -- a God. This is an assumption Evolutionary Theory does not make, and does not require. You cannot properly consider a theory's conclusions if you assume its premise is wrong or incomplete. Of course, it's fine to assert that a theory's premise is incomplete, but you must explain HOW the premise is incomplete. Bassett has skipped this important step. |