Creationists Still Wrong

« January 2006 »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
1
7
8
14
15
19
21
22
24
28
29

Memo to John Crosby: YOU ARE DUMB.

Which is fine, except that as an idiot, you expect everything else to conform to your tiny intellect. Nothing, apparently, is allowed to exist outside of your limited understanding. And that's when you become a problem.

I am using John Crosby as an example of an aspect of the evolution "debate" that I don't think I've explored in detail - the idea that science is dependent on how laypeople understand it.

Because one of the reasons we, the thinkers, are troubled by the fact that you get a say at all is because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. And this is nothing necessarily to be ashamed of. There are a bunch of subjects on which I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Complicated tax returns. Auto repair. The appeal of Martin Lawrence.

But on at least two of those three subjects, I keep my fucking yap shut, because I don't have the necessary knowledge to speak to it. When my life requires someone in it who DOES have that knowledge, I turn to experts, and accept, albeit grudgingly, their expertise.

Which makes me different from the John Crosbies of the Shakopees of the world, who take their fundamental wrongnesses on the nature of science and the evolution of nature, and construct cute "gotcha" paragraphs out of them like turd origami. Then they send them to the newspaper, who decides they're only suitable for publication on the Internet, where I'll see them and get pissed off. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"What would happen if we found scientific evidence to suggest there is an Intelligent Designer (Supreme Being)? Would we have to sweep that scientific knowledge under the rug in science class?"

No, because that's not how science works. You think that's how it would work, because you think there's already evidence for God, and you think it's already being swept under the rug. But there isn't any scientific evidence, and that's why ID keeps getting shot down.

"For example, how did the first primitive living cell originate? Even the most primitive of cells is an extremely complex network of sophisticated chemicals known as proteins and enzymes. Did these sophisticated chemicals just one day collide and decide to have a party?"

Contrary to idiotic belief, evolution does not concern itself per se with the origins of life. How life started is still an acknowledged, unanswered question, although the people looking into it have a lot better idea of what might have gone on than Crosby has. Just because you can spell "enzymes" doesn't mean you get to be taken seriously when you suggest scientific thought hasn't gone beyond two guys in lab coats, sitting around in a room putting metaphorical party hats on hydrocarbons.

"The mathematical chance of sophisticated chemicals coming together on their own to make a living cell is probably about the same as a tornado going through a junk-yard and out of this, somehow an X-Box 360 is formed. And then the X-Box 360 would have to reproduce itself! Pretty fantastic if you ask me."

First, I love the "probably" there. At least he had the intellectual honesty to put the "probably" there. Probably means he has no idea what the odds of either are, he just knows they're remote. So he's talking out of his ass even before he gets to his hideously flawed analogy. Primitive proteins are not XBox 360s. If they were, people would be cracking open Crosby's head in order to sell the contents on eBay.

Add in the fact that the scale, timeframe, and frequency of chemical interactions under any circumstances are vastly greater than that of a tornado through a junkyard, and you come to the inevitable conclusion that John Crosby's understanding of the scientific method, evolution, theories on the origins of life, and basic biology is so flawed as to be practically nonexistent.

So why are the John Crosbies of the world driving this debate? Why are people who misunderstand and mischaracterize science even part of the science education policy debate? Because most of you don't understand it either, and you hate being left out just because you're stupid. Well, tough shit.

By the way, we know how bumblebees fly now. The creationists loved to say that science was limited because according to science, bumblebees couldn't fly, yet clearly they do. Well, again, that was creationists not understanding science. A couple of scientists using a flawed model said it was impossible. Most scientists didn't give a shit about bees. Now, a few scientists cared enough to check it out.

And after high-speed photography and computer modeling failed to reveal the presence of billions of tiny angels carrying the bees in the palms of their outstretched hands, they came to the conclusion that bees don't flap like birds, and thus don't fly like birds, but rather, like bees.

If science doesn't know it now, people will keep looking at it until they think they do. If those people are wrong, more people will come along and look at it until they think they've fixed it. No parties, no Xboxen, no tornadoes. Just thought and study and research and work that you think you can toss out the window because you can't suss it out. And you wonder why we hold you in such utter contempt.