There has been a flurry of creationist nonsense in the metro recently. The depressing thing is that it’s the same thoroughly refuted nonsense that keeps coming up. This time they have claimed that no transitional fossils exist and that speciation does not occur. As a result I got this letter published.
“Let me expose some creationist lies. 1. No transitional forms exist. This is rubbish! Transitions have been found for all major vertebrate groups. For example, for the evolution of whales, we have Sionyx, Pakicetus, Indohyus, Kutchicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocentus, Miacetus, Protocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, Squalodon and Ceitotherium to name a few. They have also been found in the right places in rocks of the right age and show a gradual progression to more whale like animals. Furthermore, DNA evidence confirms their relationship to the proposed ancestral group.
2. Speciation does not occur. This is another lie and it has actually been observed. Try the Madeira island house mouse for example.
Creationists have no evidence of their own and rely on promoting the above lies and then denying the facts. Strangely, they think their ignorance of biology is evidence of their position.”
One has to wonder how these people have bypassed all the evidence at school and seem to quote lies and ignorance from fundamentalist sites. Is it a failure of our education system? They are very easy to shoot down though, but that won’t make a difference to them. I expect replies of “it’s still a mouse” (even though it is a new species) and the fossils are not complete (something I dealt with here) or the good old where are the transitional forms for the transitional forms? chestnut.
Concurrently, there is some joker claiming that Darwinism gave Hitler his justification – groan!
12 comments:
I do wonder what any creationist would consider as evidence against their bullshit?
What hacks me off the most is where they are getting their information from.
No matter how much hard work you do to produce good, hard evidence - stuff people have gone to extraordinary lengths using up a lot of time and ardure - it is never enough to counteract their bullshit and get them to admit they are wrong.
You point out their flaws using evidence and they produce "belief" and "faith" as if it is some sort of virtuous thing to do.
Good work from you as per usual Billy, I hope it causes a stir!
:)
Billy,
Stout work, as always, Sir.
Philip makes an astute point, I think when he says:
What hacks me off the most is where they are getting their information from?
The answer, I think (by no means originally) is clearly each other, since, as you have explained in great detail in many splendid posts here, and, for example, Richard Dawkins also makes plain his "Missing Link? What Do You Mean, Missing?" chapter of The Greatest Show On Earth, not only does the fossil record contain large numbers of beautiful intermediates, even if it didn't, the evidence for evolution is in any case, as Dawkins puts it, "entirely secure."
The evolution deniers are forced into ever more tortuous and unconvincing exercises in the unedifyingly fatuous sports of goalpost shifting and long distance conclusion jumping, neither of which (quite rightly) have yet troubled the IOC...
Mark_W
Concurrently, there is some joker claiming that Darwinism gave Hitler his justification – groan!
I just watched a BBC(?) documentary that pretty much says that. "Darwin's dangerous idea"
Since it was only shown in Aus in this month, so it is probably 18 months old by now.
In fair, it wasn't a bad show and I learnt a bit of history (which I shall assume is true) it did quote evolution as fact, merely pointed out that some idiots took Darwin’s idea, turned it into bad science, and added bad ideology to it
The problem is that it is just ammo to the fundie
Lee
PS
Keep up the good worka
Philip
What hacks me off the most is where they are getting their information from.
AIG. I do wonder if the no transitional fossils claim dates back to "The Origin" where Darwin writes "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
I've had a few fundies throw that up. Nice to see they are uop to date. They never mention the fact that Archaeopteryx lithographica was described 2 years later though. The other thing is that AIG must always deny the existence of anything that is transitional.
Mark
The evolution deniers are forced into ever more tortuous and unconvincing exercises in the unedifyingly fatuous sports of goalpost shifting and long distance conclusion jumping,
I am coming round to using the term evolution denier rather than creationist, because all they do is decieve to deny. They start with the conclusion and then get "creative" to defend the undefendable
Lee
In fair, it wasn't a bad show and I learnt a bit of history (which I shall assume is true) it did quote evolution as fact, merely pointed out that some idiots took Darwin’s idea, turned it into bad science, and added bad ideology to it
Seen this?
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
2009/09/30/hoist/
Billy,
I am coming round to using the term evolution denier rather than creationist
Me too. Initially I was a bit nervous of it, but after (incredibly belatedly) reading Michael Shermer's 1997 book Why People Believe Weird Things, I think he makes the case there that it's not only valid, but the best term for what they're up to...
Lee,
I just watched a BBC(?) documentary that pretty much says that. "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"
Was that the Andrew Marr one? I quite like Marr, but tend to find (this is going to sound very snobbish and pompous, but it's really not meant to), that he's inclined, as a TV person (as with his various history books) to tend towards the modern-TV fondness for generalisations and soundbites, rather than the interesting depth he's obviously capable of...
Mark_W
Seen this bullshit over at Lifebite?
http://www.lifebite.co.uk/index.php/home/detail/dawkins_dodges_design_debate/
There is some SERIOUS keich on that lifebite web site.
It'll make you spew, it will, I tell you......
:-)
SG
It's things like this that make the Intelligent Designer wonder why he didn't just go into the family law practice.
SG, I read the Dawkins article on that site - what a load of bullshit. Will these IDiots ever learn that ID is not science?
Billy - all I can say is I share your sentiments.
Perhaps we should approach "evidence-denying" ideologies as mental illnesses. Look for the cause, then search for a cure?
I mean, if your best friend "Jim" was convinced that he could talk to a blue unicorn who....
created the universe.
was going to end the world soon and judge mankind.
required Jim to sing songs of praise to him.
wanted Jim to fight for all political legislation to favor the opinions of the blue unicorn.
And most of all - convinced Jim to believe that 1+1 does not equal 2, ever, in any circumstance....
Wouldn't we want to figure out what triggered Jim to accept such silly things, and if possible help him?
Eh.... I'm just trying to sort it out on my own. I realized there was no point in engaging fundies with facts since they ignore them - so I now am trying to figure out why they ignore them and if there is a way to fix that.
Samuel,
Unfortunately, I think the battle is now for young mind. Fundies know this all too well.
A lot of fundies also have too much invested in their beliefs and this is reinforced by fundie lies like evolution=the Nazis and atheists have no morals
"fundie lies like evolution=the Nazis and atheists have no morals"
What I have found so disheartening is that when you really press a Fundie.... they talk exactly like Hitler.
They will justify infanticide in the Bible - or any of the other genocidal acts committed or condoned by their deity.
Post a Comment