Sunday, December 23, 2007

The stupidity, it burns!

Once in a while, I come across some seriously stupid dreck, and I can't help sharing it with the rest of you.

At the site, Renew America (which endorses Alan Keyes), a guy names Grant Swank, talks about stuff he doesn't understand. In this case, evolution.

God-evolution debate won't quit

The headline starts of by giving a good indication of the stance of Swank, where evolution and God is opposed to each other, indicating a belief in a literate reading of the Biblical creation myth.

"There are no permanent victories in politics," a defender of Intelligent Design said. "You do not get paradigm shifts overnight. Whether the ultimate victory is today or it's tomorrow or it's two years from now, people demand that they get open discussion of this issue."

This was in response to the Ohio Board of Education voting 11 to 4 to "toss out a mandate that 10th grade biology classes include critical analysis of evolution and an accompanying model lesson plan," according to the New York Times' Jodi Rudoren.


Interesting that Swank quotes a neo-Creationist who makes clear that this is all politics, and not science, since there are permanent victories in science, where one theory, or more commonly hypothesis, is rejected because it doesn't fit the facts. Which is what has happened to the creation myth - the Biblical description doesn't fit the facts of the world, and has thus been rejected by science.

Personally, I see no problem with a "critical analysis of evolution", since it's all part of science. However, we all know that it's coded language for teaching neo-Creationism, as a so-called alternative to evolution, which is absolute nonsense, and should be rejected out of hand.

The whole matter is still in flux and will continue to be. The reason? Because there are intelligent persons who know that Charles Darwin's theory is full of holes. Large holes. Extra large holes.


There are also intelligent people who "know" that the Holocaust is a hoax. That doesn't make it true, and neither does this make it true that the Theory of Evolution is full of holes, no matter their size. Charles Darwin's original theory has been expanded quite a lot, but its essence, decent with modifications, has withstood 150 years of critical analysis, simply because it fits the facts, and has the greatest explanatory power of how species evolve.

It simply cannot be stated enough, that the Theory of Evolution is the pillar upon which we base all biology, and a lot of medicine for that matter. Without it, biology simply makes no sense.

I believe, first of all, evolution is a crock.


If you believe that, you'll believe anything. Of course, given the fact that you're writing on a site that endorses Alan Keyes, that's hardly surprising.

It takes a lot of faith to believe that I came from an ameba. A lot of faith!


First of all, I believe it's spelled "amoeba". Second of all, it might take a lot of faith to believe it, if you mean "believe" in the religious sense. The rest of us just accept it, since this is what the evidence shows us. This is the difference between the religious approach, and the scientific approach. People following the scientific approach goes where the evidence leads them, and accepts the results (after verifying them, of course).

So evolution should be taught in Faith Class, otherwise known in parochial schools as Religion Class.


It seems to be the new trend to call evolution religion. Obviously Swank has a very limited understanding of what science is, and apparently he doesn't understand what faith and religion is.

Personally, I think that evolution should be mentioned in religion class (together with e.g. the Big Bang theory), to explain why we know that different creation myths are not true. However, I can accept that this is not within the scope of the class.

It's a crazy world we live in. Crazier every day. But one of the craziest notions that ever came down the pike is evolution. Who in his right mind would ever believe that the complicated homo sapien derived from a speck? That's getting the larger from the smaller.


Anyone with a right mind would in fact accept that. As a matter of fact, we observe this every time a new homo sapiens is created, where two "specks" (so to speak), join together to become first a fetus, and later a baby.

As an aside, homo sapiens are no more complicated than a number of other beings on our planet, so why single out that particular species as an example?

When I was in school, we were taught that one of the fundamental postulates is that one cannot get the greater from the smaller. Yet that is what evolution is all about — greater from the smaller. Now that's a crock.


Obviously, Swank didn't learn chemistry.

Evolution is furthermore an insult to the intelligent brain.


No more so than the column by Swank. As a matter of fact, a whole lot less so, than the column by Swank.

That's why the world is crazy when the so-called intelligentsia defend this notion called "evolution." The PhDs do that. The professors do that. The textbook writers and so forth do that. They all get in their clique and stroke one another with this Alice from Wonderland fancy that we all came from a speck.


So, on one hand we have a lot of people who have taken the time to get educated on the subject, often doing real research, and on the other hand, we have someone like Swank, who is a pastor, believing in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. And the world is crazy because these people stand up for evoultion?

Oh, and the last sentence in that paragraph destroyed my irony meter.

Then they throw in the Big Bang Whatever. This complicated universe and planet Earth just blew into place. There's another nuthouse one for you.


"Another nuthouse" aka evidence based science. The Big Bang theory was controversial when it first came out, but as scientists have evaluated the evidence, it has become clear that it is the best explanation of how the current universe can into existence. As a result, it has become generally accepted by scientists, and people not blinded by their religion.

So, back to Faith Class, evolution and Darwin and the boys need to be put in Faith Class. It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does in angels and demons and an invisible God. It takes as much faith to believe in Darwin's spin as it does to believe that Jesus fed thousands with a kid's lunch.


Faith. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

We have numerous pieces of evidence for evolution (we can even observe it in nature) and for the Big Bang, which makes out "belief" in it, the very opposite of faith.

God, demons, and angels on the other hand, are entirely without observable evidence, and even the life of Jesus is entirely undocumented by contemporary sources. Belief in any of these things, does require faith, as there is no evidence of them. This is something which even religious people generally agree with.

Now at least Religion Class is up front about its basic postulate. It starts with faith. Religion Class makes no bones about it. The instructor starts with telling pupils that they have to believe.


When I had religion in school, we were certainly not expected to believe. We were expected to understand the different religions, and what impact they have had on our society, but belief was not a requirement. Maybe Swank is thinking about Sunday School?

So Christians, for example, say they have faith there is a God of the Bible, angels, demons, heaven, hell, afterlife, saving grace, judgment, and so forth.

They don't try to prove it. In fact, Christians say that finally all that can't be proven for if mortal could prove it, mortal would be God.


And yet, Swank think that the evidence based world of science is equal to religion.

So unabashedly Christians start with faith and say that if you don't want to have the faith, that's your choice. You have the decision-making powers to cancel out faith for non-faith and that is your right as a free will being.


A large number of Christians don't say that it's your choice - as a matter of fact, they say that if you don't believe, you'll get tortured in Hell eternally. That's like saying to people that it's up to them if they want to pay protection money, but if they don't, they'll get their knee smashed.

Also, a large number of people, Alan Keyes among them, wants to make laws based upon their faith. Laws that have an impact on other people, such as homosexuals. So, even if they don't share the same faith, they still have to follow the rules made by that faith? Doesn't sound much like free will to me.

But when it comes to evolution, the adherents make us hold to that nonsense as a fact. They press it upon us as evangelists of Darwin. And of course it's not a fact any more than fairy tales are facts. Evolution is a theory, and an exceptionally wide-eyed foolish one at that. Nevertheless, it is a mere theory as much as tapioca pudding causes Milky Ways is a theory.


Swank shows his stupidity in so many ways here. First of all, what he doesn't understand is that while religion dictates the conclusion first, and then interpret all things through that filter, science works by looking at the evidence, and then try to explain it. In other words, science is based upon facts, which is why we insist that it's factual! You, sir, are not entitled to your own facts.

And of course, there is the usual stupidity about evolution just being a theory. Scientific theories are the most rigorous tested explanations, which has withstood all testing and attempts of falsifying them. They have nothing to do with the kind of postulates that are commonly called theories in normal conversations.

So evolution should be taught in Faith Class if it's going to be put upon the students in public schools. It does not certainly belong in science class. It's not a science. It's not a proven fact. Now of course if there is a chapter in science class about theories, then evolution can be presented as a theory as much as Alice in Wonderland can be presented as a theory. But nothing more than a theory.


Can you please just shut up? Your writing is so amazingly stupid that it actually hurts to read your crap.

If we need an ignoramus to explain to us what science is, we'll certainly make sure to call, but until then, perhaps you should try to get even the tiniest amount of education on the subject that you feel qualified to spew nonsense about? Of course, that'll lead you to become painfully aware of how grossly stupid you've been, but even so, you'll find it worth your time, I'm sure. At least, it'll make it possible for you to avoid appearing such a fool in the future.

Yes, the world is crazy. And getting crazier still.


Maybe it's just the people you hang out with that's bat-shit insane?

Labels: , ,

1 Comments:

Blogger Ms. SuperScience said...

I always enjoy the use of the term "batshit insane" - nice post debunking this nutjob. :)

December 26, 2007 7:30 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home