Freaking Friday

I sometimes like to go over to CARM (the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry) and see if any of the flakes (not all there are flakes- I am specifically referring to the ones who are) who hang out in the Evolution-Design message boards are being silly so I can get a laugh which quickly morphs into concern, then motivation to promote better education, and finally culminates with distraction by any number of my myriad interests until the cycle begins anew. I thought I would share one such flake's post and my response. Maybe this will become a regular Friday bit.

First, here's the entire initial thread post I was responding to.

Since the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God, then it's not hard to see how the theory was formed. if God didn't create humans and animals, then how were they created? The answer is a foregone conclusion: They must have come from each other. :lol:

So to deny God, scientists have tried to fit a square peg into a round hole by claiming that one animal came from another animal which is not only absolutely contrary to how reality works, but it goes beyond the bizarre. It leads to:

1) Claiming that animals can breed human descendants
2) Humans are animals
3) The environment turns one animal into another.
4) Human descendants will eventually turn into a new species
5) Humans once had tails
6) One day humans might have wings
7) Changing the history of the Jews
8) Making up new tribes of primates and or humans

The above surpasses science fiction because it's considered "science" and therefore falls into the category of mythology. And yet scientists laugh at ancient people for being superstitious!

Sorry guys, but ancient people thought they had just as much evidence for their claims as the scientists of today think. Only the scientists of today, have less excuse because they should know how animals and humans breed!

Nevertheless, in their desperation to deny God, any irrational claim will do. All one has to do is have a Ph.d. and others who can't think for themselves say; "Yeah, yeah, I'll believe anyting you say...uh-huh, uh-huh." And that's why scientists can get people to believe anything they want them to.

Here's why he is a flake.

Since the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God

And what is the source of this claim? Was Galileo trying to deny God with the assertion of the heliocentric solar system? After all, the bible says that the earth does not move. It seems this is an ex post facto fallacy. Your hypothesis as stated above is most likely drawn from your observation of a perceived correllation between lack of belief in god and belief in evolution. Most likely you use that same correllation to provide evidence for your hypothesis. This is a logic no-no.

So to deny God, scientists have tried to fit a square peg into a round hole by claiming that one animal came from another animal which is not only absolutely contrary to how reality works, but it goes beyond the bizarre

If you would care to list the similarities between humans and other organisms and then separately list the differences I think you'll find that the list of similarities between humans and other species far outnumber the differences in most cases. When considering the two (especially apes and humans) it seems strange that you would find the concept that two organisms, with far more similarities than differences all the way down to the molecular level, are related is more bizarre than the complete rejection of any possibility of relation out of hand due to your particular interpretation of anceint hebrew legends written prior to the development of scientific methodology, while simulataneously dismissing out of hand all other anceint legends concerning the same topic.

1) Claiming that animals can breed human descendants

Claiming that offspring have slight genetic differences from their parents and these differences can accumulate over time and under certain circumstances may result in new species. And yes, that human beings have been one particular result from this accumulation of change.

2) Humans are animals

See my comment on comparison above.

3) The environment turns one animal into another.

Environmental factors can affect species development, primarily through selective pressures.

4) Human descendants will eventually turn into a new species

Potentially but not necessarily.

5) Humans once had tails

See Coccyx and Sacrum. If true, is this really that difficult to accept?

One day humans might have wings

I can't see anyone using this as a signature result of evolutionary theory. Perhaps someone speculating on the vast potentiality of evolutionary development may have made such a comment, but there is no credible individual saying this is a definite result of evolutionary change in humans other than yourself. Of course people of religious persuasion sometimes make the claim that humans will have wings one day, but that's not the intended audience for your comically naive approach to evolution.

7) Changing the history of the Jews

So when you consider the legends about the origins of humanity from the Norse or the Greeks or the Japanese your purpose is to change the history of the Nordic peoples or Greeks or Japanese people?

8) Making up new tribes of primates and or humans

I'm not even sure what you mean here.

The above surpasses science fiction because it's considered "science" and therefore falls into the category of mythology.

This goes beyond science fiction. Reason: Because it's considered science. This statement is saying that the condition of being considered science makes the "results" of evolution you claimed in your post be worthy of a classification that surpasses science fiction. I am not clear what it means to "surpass" science fiction. You seem to consider it as the state of being mythology. I am not sure in which way you mean mythology "surpasses" science fiction. I am certain that such a classification is not warranted simply due to being considered science. And most of the "results" you posted are your particular versions of information and predictions that are not related to any accurate representation of the scientific view of evolutionary theory.

Sorry guys, but ancient people thought they had just as much evidence for their claims as the scientists of today think.

And that's why life expectancy has been 70 - 80 years for thousands of years now. That's why the Ptolemaic view of astronomy was immediately rejected and proven false. That's why they used genetic markers in DNA to prove that Jesus had no human father. And that's why bubonic plague vaccines were required all over Europe in the middle ages.

All one has to do is have a Ph.d. and others who can't think for themselves say; "Yeah, yeah, I'll believe anyting you say...uh-huh, uh-huh." And that's why scientists can get people to believe anything they want them to.

Of course, good skeptical thinkers will go to as many primary sources of information as possible and on every reasonable occassion will observe available evidence themselves to draw their own conclusions. They will also demand that conclusions be supported by empirical data that reasonably leads to those conclusions. They will challenge each others' ideas and will always be willing to consider new ideas if scientifically sound.

I can think of one cultural institution where irrational claims are the norm and people sometimes accept uncritically or with little thoughtful consideration the words of those in positions of authority simply because they have a costume or a few letters in front of their name or it was referenced from a book. Care to guess what it is? Hint: It's not Science.

Optimism for a New Year

Inspired by the annual question at the Edge, "what are you optimistic about for the future?", and a post on Stranger Fruit at Scienceblogs by someone who seems enraged by liberal/atheistic/scientific (they seem to be one group for him) bloggers very existence on the internets, I have decided to think optimistically for today. I want to apologize for not announcing my recent blogging break, but I did not intend to avoid blogging for such a long period. But this is a new year, and I want to start off early and hope to achieve some sort of consistency despite it being against my very nature.

It seems I recall a time called high school when many of the smartest kids were considered outcasts and despite differences in interests and opinions, often engaged socially with one another simply because their perspectives, ways of thinking and communicative tendencies often led to confusion and miscommunication when engaged with more typical patterns of thinking found in the general population. Whether due to inadequate vocabulary or an inability to conceptually grasp the discussions of the gifted, some of those lacking in such abilities would fear and despise the intellectual subset of high school students and through exclusion or occasionally use threat of violence to help supplement a hidden ego-weakness characterized by the ideas that "if I don't know what they are talking about then a) they may be better than me in some way and b) they may be talking about me."

Then came the internet and those smart people could gather together, discuss their issues, and they could not be threatened into keeping their discussions in carefully guarded privacy. It was the realization of the worst fear of many who either through choice or limitations do not participate in nor acknowledge the benefits of the academic or intellectual lifestyle. And you know, sometimes the smart kids were talking about them. So they try to counter with the one true weapon in the age of cyberspace- with words of their own. Unfortunately, they still don't know what those bright kids were talking about, so their arguments fall flat. Meanwhile, those kids- so often excluded, so often misunderstood, and so often demonized for their talents, have been sharpening their skills at debate and honing their linguistic talents to razor sharp precision.

You can almost hear them type: it's our time now.