I mean, Hitchens offers this title for the article...
Losing Sight of Progress
How blind salamanders make nonsense of creationists' claims.
Who in the heck does he think he's fooling? He must certainly know by now exactly how "creationists" are going to address this ridiculous assertion. So, why is it that Darwinists bring up *loss* of information over and over again and insist that these examples somehow "make nonsense of creationists' claims"?
Hitchens writes to his buddy Dawkins to ask if he's on to something...
I wrote to professor Richard Dawkins to ask if I had stumbled on the outlines of a point...
LOL...as if he's the first to point at loss of information and declare that the mysteries surrounding evolution are solved and that "creationists" are IDiots.
News flash Hitchens...Darwinists make these assertions all the time, but I'm sure you're well aware of that. As I've noted several times in the past, Sean Carroll is all over loss of information and equates it with proof of evolution. Sheesh...as if ID supporters question this aspect of evolution in the least.
Sigh...
Cue Casey...
Hitchens, Dawkins and Carroll can have all the evidence they want that the neo-Darwinian mechanism can mess things up, turn genes off, and cause "loss-of-function." No one on any side of this debate doubts that random mutations are quite good at destroying complex features. Us folks on the ID side suspect that random mutation and natural selection aren’t good at doing very much more than that. And the constant citations by Darwinists of "loss of function" examples as alleged refutations of ID only strengthens our argument.
Meanwhile, ID proponents seek to explain a far more interesting aspect of biological history: the origin of new complex biological features. Despite his quotation of Michael Shermer on the evolution of the eye, Hitchens has yet to do that.
