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.
Update:
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.
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.
Update:
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.
posted by Mark at 10:28 PM
4 Comments:
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.
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.
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.
And one more thing if you want to be taken seriously get away from anonymity. It's makes you appear a cowardly joke.
Post a Comment
<< Home