Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
Based on what the dude on the other site says about Asimov, this Asimov fellow sounds like a dumbass. Why do we care what he thinks?
(I do like Asimov mostly but it's fun when someone uses appeal to intelligence to just call their example a dumbass.)
|
Isaac Asimov was firmly on the side of evolution, and that included criticizing the OP creationist's argument.
- "The Unblind Workings of Chance" in "Only a Trillion"
- "The Judo Argument" in "The Planet That Wasn't"
IA pointed out that atoms and molecules do *not* combine completely at random, that there are natural-selection effects like lower total energy. Thus, if one combines hydrogen and oxygen, one makes water, H2O, because that is the lowest-energy combination of hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
Likewise, biological evolution is *not* completely random. Natural selection is an important mechanism, and it is *not* random.
So this creationist was selectively quoting IA and making him seem like a fellow creationist. Sort of like how many creationists selectively quote Charles Darwin on the evolution of the eye.