Keith Ericson Challenges Evolution and Creation in New Book

Aug 8, 2014 Full story: BroadwayWorld.com

The human body is one of the most complicated, spectacular and researched subjects in modern science - and yet, how it came to be remains a mystery to this day.

Full Story

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#1 Aug 8, 2014
Quote: "You don't have to be a religious zealot to counter the theory of evolution," said Ericson. "Evolution is the widely accepted popular theory that explains the human mind and body as it is today. Unfortunately, there isn't much rational, academic discussion relating to alternative theories, which is an important part of the learning process. This book fills that gap."

Notes:
1) the only ones until now who did counter the theory of evolution were religious zealots.
2) there isn't much rational, academic discussion relating to to alternative theories indeed. One may ask why....

Next quote: "Ericson questions the over-reliance on Darwinian evolution and challenges readers by taking a non-religious, fact-based and comprehensive look at intelligent design as the most rational answer to the question of how the human body came to be."

A non-religious look at intelligent design is an oxymoron, unless you believe that life on earth was instigated by aliens.

Excerpt from the preface:
"In this book you will see the term "pure evolutionist" used many times. This describes the person who believes there is no intelligence behind the design of the human body - that everything happened by chance or by accident. The pure evolutionist may actually believe that humans are the most intelligent beings in the universe".

Anyone (apart from the creationists) recognize someone in the "pure evolutionist"? Neither me! For the creationists here:
1) because no evolutionist says or implies that everything happened by chance or by accident
2) because no evolutionist actually believes that humans are the most intelligent beings in the universe.

In other words: the same ol' crap and deceit by straw man fallacies.

For the "evolutionists" here again: I think it's the very next creationism in disguise, trying to look "modern" and "scientific".

Further form the excerpt of the preface:
"Finally, we advance the idea that there cannot be such a concept as non-intelligent design. Anything that shows design cries out that there is some kind of intelligence behind that design". follows endless elaborations on how complex life can be.

Well the blind watchmaker again. Now that's hot news! Holy crap how complex life is indeed.

YAWN.

What do we see? Someone without any biological background (Ericson enjoyed education in arts and administration) trying to address biology, debating non existing positions, using old, worn out arguments.

Next please.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2 Aug 8, 2014
Keith who?(shrug)

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#3 Aug 9, 2014
I like the way these dopes seem to think that complex life could not have arisen by natural processes here on earth, so there must be an intelligent agent (not god, no siree Bob!). Yet they seem to be blissfully unaware that this just moves the problem one step away. Presumably they think that wherever complex life did arise, conditions must have been different and there was no impediment, but they seem rather vague about just why that might be.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#4 Aug 19, 2014
Ericson questions the over-reliance on Darwinian evolution and challenges readers by taking a non-religious, fact-based and comprehensive look at intelligent design as the most rational answer to the question of how the human body came to be.
Wonder if Keith is a shill for the Discovery Institute?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#5 Aug 19, 2014
No,I thought he name sounded familiar and had to look it up. He's one of a few 'Self-Published Geniuses' the Blog the Sensuous Curmudgeon wrote about. Check out: http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2014/...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min JM_Brazil 134,133
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 2 hr Brian_G 13,627
How would creationists explain... 3 hr Chimney1 439
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 6 hr DanFromSmithville 507
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 9 hr Hidingfromyou 698
Science News (Sep '13) Dec 24 positronium 2,944
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
More from around the web