Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Creationism Nonsense

Most Americans are so ignorant even with the best education available everywhere that they'll buy into almost any fallacy peddled by agenda-wielding zealots of every religious stripe.

Consider this reviewer Robert Locke, a commenter posted to my blog. Just barely into it I find this breathtaking claim:

"But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution."

A major trend in biology! Ha! This is categorically false. To Locke maybe, but no one in science that's credilble. He goes on to misrepresent Stephen Jay Gould's take on gradualism, which is Punctuated Equilibrium, that is to say evolution came in fits and starts punctuated apocalyptic geological events over millions of years. This is reality. What these charlatans are peddling is fallacious lies to support creationist belief. So pitiful. And factually incorrect.

The Locke review in support of two creationist "ID" books from 2001 is so fallacious as to be completely invalid factually as to what evolution is. He's hanging his hat on misrepresentation and extrapolating the gaps in the fossil record. This tactic is as old as the hills. Transitional forms are everywhere, but every single one isn't, or needs to be. This take is more evidence that conservatives can't think thir way out of the cave. Or a paper bag for that matter on any issue. In science, it's the preponderance of the evidence that fortifies a theory. In this regard evolution is as solid as the day it was published and more.


Blogger The Late Mitchell Warren said...

Do you think all creationist leaders are agenda-wielding? I can certainly see how many are. But I think there are some people, at least individuals among a clergy class, who have good intentions.

Some people prefer illusion to despair. It is human to want to believe in something more than we already have.

8:13 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Well certainly all clergy aren't the same personally anymore than anyone of us is. Doing good social work is different than understanding the nature of humanity on Earth. I think that's true about the dispair. I'd rather have hope in myself than delusion for all time though but that's just me. I find this place and story amazing whether I know the why or not. So far nobody knows the answer to that question.

Scientists aren't involved with trying to answer it though. It's not in the job description.

8:20 PM  
Blogger itisalltheory said...

I was an evolutionist until quite recently, now I am definitely moving towards creationism, or at least non-evolutionism. The reason for this is a lecture I heard from an atheist scientist - one quite well respected. By the time he finished pointing out the near-hidden retractions in mainstream pubs such as National Geographic, the HUUUUGEEEE assumptions made about fossils (exactly WHY did they add feathers to the leg bone they found in China??) and showed documented instance after instance where both popular methods of dating were exposed as virtually useless, I'm beginning to wonder how I ever bought into this theory in the first place. Seriously people, if we evolved then where are all the "tweens"?? We're not seeing them...we're not finding them. Why?

Science is supposed to be based on fact, but all I see with the evolutionist theory is just theory, with very little being proven. Sure, they can tell us something lived a long time ago, but that's about it...they can't even tell us how long ago. They "guess" millions of years, but those educated guesses are based on mere assumptions and inaccuracies that have been perpetrated by those who benefit from the falacies and most of us mere babes in the scientific woods are happy to accept whatever hogwash is sent our way.

Feathers indeed! Show me some proof. Until then, the evolutionary theory is no more scientific than creationism. Hey, maybe Tom Cruise is was the aliens!

9:53 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

A theory in science is much more than a fancifal notion. Apparently you don't know the difference. You've illutrated that hypothesis perfectly. Go back and study. Dawkins Gould, Ernst Mayr. Get cracking.

1:48 PM  
Blogger itisalltheory said...

Hahaha. You know, I ended up on this blog simply because I refused to believe what I read about you. I'm now a believer! Anyway, it's you who would probably be better served by more reading - go outside your box, you're too narrow minded and unable to write without insult simply because you don't possess the tools to argue with those who are open to learning. And I doubt you could name a book on the subject that I haven't read. But please, keep trying.

It's not education if you're only reading things that support your views.

3:29 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

What you read about me? That's a small library I fear. Opposing views are those that have valid aspects and points of contention that have merit. Or the possibility of merit. Not illogical drivel like intellegent design. When it comes to the cpmparison between, say,the National Academy of Sciences and the assertions of the Raelians, I'll go with the former.

Cockamamie and how to detect it is an excersie in critical thinking. I implore you to consult a textbook in this regard. It's not my job to coddle the muddleheaded. I'm not a cult deprogrammer. For that go to the Paolini's.

5:14 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

And one more thing if you want to be taken seriously get away from anonymity. It's makes you appear a cowardly joke.

5:23 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

The Environmental Webring
The Environmental Webring
[ Join Now | Ring Hub | Random | << Prev | Next >> ]