Whoa whoa...wait a moment.
Sucks having to defend a guy I do not like, but...
Regarding the "geocentric" thingy, I think I better explain
properly. Ok firstly I admit I am not totally clear about his
points. To be fair then, anything you address now is directed at
me, because it is *my* interpretation of what he said! Anyway, if
you take my word for it, this is what I think he meant. If we use a
telescope and look in all directions, the universe is receding
equally. This suggests that if the creation of the universe started
from a single point which slowly expanded outwards, then that point
is the Earth.
This is different from the idea of the universe revolving around
the earth/sun. That one can be explained by gravitation. I too
would be shocked if a PhD holder in cosmology / physics said that
the universe revolves around the earth!
Then the genetics part. Again he said the mutations we observe
"almost never" result in beneficial effects (as opposed to "never
at all" ). Instead of saying that he doesn't know his biology, the
main point we can take from this is: the probability of anything
"beneficial" happening is very small. Logically true. Let's say we
have a deck of 52 cards, we we want it such that the cards are
neatly arranged by suits. Random shuffling would very very rarely
produce such a configuration.
How small? How rare? What would it take to convince me / you that
we are the product of probability? So that's why I say, we need to
look at the evidence.
