What Does Nana Know!

I was walking down the street in London some time ago and walked past a bookstore window. It was full of stacked copies of a single book--"The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins. This man writes a new book every year or so to keep bludgeoning us, oops, I mean, instructing us, with all the reasons why we should believe the Darwinian Synthesis, that hypothesis (they wouldn't like that I used this word) that says that all life is the result of random purposeless processes that occur in the natural world without interference from any mind or intelligence. He has to keep doing this because over 40% of Americans don't believe him and he writes to tell us how witless we are.

You see, I'm with them. I don't believe that the mind-boggling complexity of the cell, the thinking processes we know as our minds, and the irreducible complexity of various living systems could possibly have come about by random, purposeless processes. I think they argue for huge amounts of information transference, for design, and yes, for a designer. When you see letters forming words forming sentences that make sense, you don't think that a random process created them. You think that someone created them. Where are the exceptions?

But what does Nana know?

It seems to me that Mr. Dawkins and his fellow travelers doth protest too much. They seems so frantic. Couldn't we  talk about this. Talk about all the pieces of the puzzle that don't fit very well  into his view of things and how they might fit better into another hypotheses?
No! He cannot talk to a doubter like me. I'm a science denier-It is very important for his ilk to marginalize any non-agree-ers because talking to us like we were intelligent thinkers with intelligent arguments might make people who hadn't made up their minds yet listen in on the conversation. And if there is anything Mr. Dawkins wants, it is to be in complete control of the conversation.

A Carving of a Stegasaurus looking thing found in Siem Riep at one of the 12 century Hindu Temples of Angor Thom
I took this picture.
They tell us things like these walked the earth 150 million years ago, give or take.
So how did they know in the 12th century?  Don't ask Richard Dawkins.
He might expire of exasperation. Because of course there has to be a naturalistic explanation. That's the beauty of defining yourself as always on the side of reason, and the rest of us always on the side of delusion.

I took this picture too. Looks Tyranosaurus-like to me.  But what does Nana know?

Because I doubt Dawkin's naturalistic, materialistic version of reality, I am not a "reputable" thinker and if "Intelligent Design" is mentioned, it must always be put in parenthesis. We are reminded that most of these American rubes think that the world and everything on it was created by God less than 10,000 years ago. Here's where they all snicker. "Mon Dieu! Can you imagine a country so backward! "

Well I'm sorry Mr. Dawkins, but lots of very intelligent people who know perfectly well that the world is very very old still don't believe your version of origins. But it is certainly much easier to shoot down a straw-man than argue against informed scientists who differ from you. So go ahead and imagine that we're all yokels chewing on hay. Me, I don't think the strawman technique, or name calling for that matter, is a very good substitute for actual evidence.

But what does Nana know?


When I went to London I visited the British Museum of Natural History. What a place! The great central hall looks a lot like a cathedral, don'tcha think?  Only up at the front where one would expect the altar to be, is a statue of Charles Darwin. But the stained glass, and the architecture of awe, it's all there, just like a church. In fact a lot of things about Darwinist believers remind me of "faith."


But what does Nana know?