Well, whaddaya know? Looks like Eric Hovind has had another attack of verbal diarrhea and once again I’m ready with my wet wipes of rationality to clean up the mess.
His full article can be found here, and it’s entitled “Reasoning With The Unreasonable” which is wrong on so many levels I don’t even want to think about it too hard as my IQ would reduce to single figures.
Anyway, lets briefly examine what he had to say
“This week I was back on the Thom Hartmann show, this time discussing Christianity and ISIS. During our conversation my host referred to Creationists as “The Christian Taliban” for wanting to teach Creation in schools. According to him, teaching Creation along with Science is no different than teaching Astrology along with Astronomy or Alchemy along with Chemistry.”
Mr Hartmann was entirely correct. Both creationists and ISIS work towards reducing the sum of human knowledge, rather than adding to it, or at least trying their best to stop human progress in its tracks. In fact the Boko Haram, an organisation with close ties to ISIS translates directly as “‘Western’ or ‘non-Islamic’ education is a sin” which can be read as simply, “education is a sin”.
Creationists constantly bang on about evolution being unscientific, unproven and constantly also (deliberately?) confuse evolution with abiogenesis and quantum physics.
I defy anyone to state that neither of these groups are trying to foul up human progress. And if anyone does, I’ll simply call them a liar… or a fucking idiot!
“Yet all I want is for science to be taught in Science class. The evolutionary worldview is not scientific! Nowhere in Science can you find something coming from nothing as is taught by the Big Bang.”
See? Told you. Can’t distinguish between two entirely separate scientific fields.
“There are over 300 dog breeds in the world. So to say, “Dogs bring forth a variety of dogs,” is scientific. We can observe, test, and demonstrate that. But to say, “Dogs evolved slowly over millions of years from a non-dog ancestor,” is NOT scientific. Since it is impossible to observe, test, or demonstrate dogs coming from something non-dog, that idea is a supernatural one and therefore fits into the category of religion, not science!”
Apart from the fact that almost all of the separate breeds of the modern dog are down to human intervention, it is clear to see that change over time is not just possible but required as the various creatures within the animal kingdom adapt to changing circumstances and environments. Whether by human intervention or by natural means.
I could talk about the complete mapping of the family tree of the modern whale, where we have conclusive proof that it’s ancestors lived in the sea, adapted to live on land and then returned to the sea. An evolution that happened over millions of years by entirely natural processes.
I could discuss the creationists’ favourite. Musa acuminata Colla, or the humble banana as it’s known, which was briefly used as proof of god’s existence by the renowned biologist (aha), Ray Comfort… Until it was pointed out to him that the modern banana has only existed since the 1836. And it was only by human intervention that the modern banana ‘evolved’, or even exists at all, due to a blight that virtually wiped out the previous variety of cultivated banana.
I could, but I won’t.
I’ll stick with dogs. Or rather the ancestor of dogs.
About 40 to 35 million years ago a creature called Hesperocyon existed and is agreed by all paleontologists to be a direct ancestor of all canids (the subfamily to which domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals and coyotes belong). This creature is very well represented in the fossil record and is actually known to be one of the most common animals resident on continental North America..
The first appearance of Canis (a genus within Canidae) or ‘proto dog’ occurred about 6 million years ago. I’m not going to go into detail on this, but if you want to know more, you can read about it here, at a genuine, bona fides educational website.
By definition: apes to man evolution is nothing more than a religious worldview.
Oh for fuck sake! Do I need a megaphone?
HUMANS ARE APES!
And all of the modern apes evolved from a common ancestor of apes!
I’d also like to know when proper scientific evidence was reduced to a religious world view and by what criteria that it was decided.
Normally I’d just link to wikipedia, but this time I thought I would add a subtle hint of legitimacy and post a link to the Smithsonian – Human Family Tree.
You gonna say that they don’t know about science and stuff, Eric?
It’s in an easy to understand format aimed primarily at small children, so even creationists will get it.
Darwin said that if evolution is true, we will find lots of evidence in the fossil record.
But when that evidence proved elusive, Stephen Jay Gould claimed that the lack of evidence only proves that evolution happened in rapid bursts by a process known as punctuated equilibrium. So the lack of evidence is now the proof?
One paleontologist formulates a theory and you frame it as though it is the standard for all paleonotologists. How reprehensible of you, Eric. But then I’m no longer surprised by your complete lack of intellectual honesty.
You’re beginning to bore me now Mr Hovind, so I’ll just quote from wikipedia here:
Some evolutionary biologists have argued that while punctuated equilibrium was “of great interest to biology”, it merely modified neo-Darwinism in a manner that was fully compatible with what had been known before.
Don’t think I need to add any more to that.
But the most important fact, which Thom chooses to ignore, is that if you don’t believe in a Creator who gave us moral laws, then you have no basis for believing that anything is right or wrong. Therefore, to accuse Christians of being like ISIS is completely invalid because your worldview can’t even explain why this would be a bad thing!
Completely ignoring the fact that non Christians can be moral too! So there is no requirement for a ‘creator’ of moral laws outside of our all-too-human selves!
And also ignoring the the fact that as an atheist I can see exactly why behaving like ISIS is a fucking bad thing. I have watched any number of Richard Dawkins videos on YouTube and at no point do I recall him ever beheading anyone for disagreeing with him!
Neither do I ever recall him, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, et al ever and I do mean ever deliberately spreading misinformation and religious hokum disguised as genuine, well researched and verified scientific knowledge.