Tag Archive: creationism

To quote one of my favourite people, Sam Harris:

“I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one.”

And it’s as simple as that. Science has a better answer than religion for every question ever asked. The opposite has never happened. I find that fascinating since there are four billion people on the planet that claim to have a direct line to the almighty creator of the universe who has all knowledge. I know so many Christians who have ‘a personal relationship with Jesus Christ’ that I could start my own mega-church, were I that way inclined. And yet somehow science progresses every day of every week steadily making our lives better; making our lives longer, making us more healthy, helping amputees, curing diseases, exploring other planets, expanding our knowledge of everything from subatomic particles to galaxy superclusters.

Creationism? Religion? World wide floods, 600 year old men building wooden boats to save ten million species of animal, talking snakes, witch burning and human sacrifice. It’s laughable.

Science. It works, bitches.

Carl Sagan is without a doubt one of my favourite people. Ever. He is that to a great many people I guess. In this video a creationist tries to argue that Evolution isn’t correct… for a number of reasons and in classic creatard debating tactic refuses to let the man answer. We all know why he let Carl refuse to answer – it’s never pleasant to have one’s dearly held beliefs destroyed…

Evolution, it’s such a simple thing that so many people refuse to see.

Anyway, here’s Carl. He’s the most awesome.

To Carl.

Facts Of Evolution

Part 1: Facts Of Evolution

While the graphics in this video aren’t always top-notch, the science described in it is mind-blowing.

The mountain of evidence for Evolution (by natural selection) is astounding and I find it really freaking difficult to understand how anybody can take even a cursory look at it and still believe creationist claptrap. The only conclusion I can draw is that Evolution deniers fall into two camps: those who are ignorant (out of choice, having been deceived, through lack of education) and those who are just plain freaking delusional.

To put it bluntly: are you prepared to convict a person in a criminal case based on DNA evidence? The overwhelming majority of people answer yes and rightly so, it’s pretty accurate. The travesty is that, at the same time as proving a criminal case (beyond reasonable doubt…), it is also rock solid proof of the common decent of all life on earth, beyond any reasonable doubt. Common decent, one of the facts of Evolution.

Virtually everybody implicitly agrees with Evolution by happily using science and technology in their every day lives that also happen to prove Evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet a great many people somehow still deny the fact of Evolution.

Ignorance or delusion? It’s one of the two. Or both.

Part 2: Mechanisms of Evolution

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y]

Ah. What he said. That is all.

Check out AronRa’s YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa

On one hand you have creationism with no evidence and on the other you have The Big Bang theory; a scientific theory with so goddamn much evidence it’s embarrassing. It has an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence. Perhaps that’s the problem with The Big Bang theory; there is so much evidence people struggle to take it all in. But I guess this is where a rudimentary science education comes in and why the higher the level of education the less likely you are to believe in creationist cattle faecal matter.

I actually find it disturbing that somebody can watch the video below where Neil deGrasse Tyson so eloquently lays  out the enormous number of ways we know the theory is correct and accurate and then go right back to believing the in the vapid mound of horse manure that is the Abrahamic creation stories.

How? How do people believe that ordure after being exposed to the profound awesome that is reality? How do you believe in a talking snake and a human centred world only six thousand years old, without any evidence what so ever, when you’ve experienced the majesty of the real, empirically supported, mathematically proven, peer-reviewed, scientifically integrated, true story of the origin of the universe?

I get the same feeling, goosebumps and all, watching Neil Tyson talk about the science behind The Big Bang theory as when people listen to an outstanding piece of music or when admiring a particularly great work of art or performance.

The truth is freaking epic. Science is freaking awesome.

Evolution: both beautiful and true.

Evolution: both beautiful and true.

Creationists argue against Evolution often using the excuse that Evolution (by the capital ‘E’ I actually mean the theory of evolution by natural selection) doesn’t explain how life happened from non-life. They claim that Evolution can’t show how non-life material organised into life and so Evolution can’t be true.

It’s true that Evolution doesn’t show how life began; however, Evolution doesn’t actually claim to have the answer to abiogenesis. It simply explains how species evolve through natural reproductive and environmental pressures.

The creationist objections are completely irrelevant then. Not explaining how non-life organised into a chemical replicator doesn’t make the theory of evolution by natural selection any less true. That Evolution happens has been scientifically proven a great many times and there is actually no debate about it, the vast majority of scientists agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

I do find it rather amusing though, that the creationists hammer on the point of abiogenesis in particular. Presumably the creationists can show us a god industriously creating people from nothing? Are there any creationists who can show evidence that “God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”. I would like a creationist to show me a god making a man from dust.  I should very much like to see that.

I mean, if you’re going to be using an issue like Evolution not explaining abiogenesis then surely you must have some evidence of your own that proves your particular theory?

Morpheus: he asks the serious questions.

Morpheus: he asks the serious questions. And he knows Kung-Fu.

Imagine Laurence Fishburne playing Morpheus in The Matrix saying the following (edit: see the video below):

So… creationist… can’t point to any gods making people from dust or ribs then? Interesting. And… creationist… got any empirical evidence for your theory that explains the millions of species we find on this planet?  Hm.

It’s so easy to talk, to say God did it. Talk is cheap. Science is hard, it requires evidence, proof, repeatability. It’s hard but it actually tries to find answers to questions and clearly succeeds very often.

Trying to find the answer and the evidence for it and failing is respectable; claiming that the answer is to be found in one dodgy book, demonstrably full of contradictions with its self, demonstrably full of contradictions with reality and not bothering to look any further, is not.

Abiogenesis: science will eventually explain it and provide proof for its explanation. Creationism? I fear there will be little credible evidence forthcoming.

The tree of life.

The tree of life.


%d bloggers like this: