New rule #8 : It's way past time to stop using the
words "Creation" and "Science" within the confines of the
same sentence. It's also time to stop juxtaposing the words "Theory" and
"Evolution" in like manner.
I
don't want to step on anyone's toes here, but I just happened upon an article
entitled "Here Is What Louisiana Schoolchildren Learn About Evolution." The apparent answer is that they learn
essentially that it's a sham of psuedo-science, created by godless communists,
while Creation "Science" is the real deal. And you wonder why some
kids are at a disadvantage getting into good schools? here are several selections from the
article: "The Bible says that
Christians should be discerning. That means that Christians should understand
what is right and what is wrong. In this activity, you will be given several articles
to read. You must evaluate whether the writer is writing from an evolutionist
viewpoint or a Creationist
viewpoint." Note here that
this is pre-loaded to push the child to the concept that Christian viewpoint is
right, and the exercise goes on to blatantly show that Creationism is the only
Christian viewpoint. Examples include: "The Bible talked about unusual
animals that were very likely Dinosaurs." ..... "So Dinosaurs and man
would have lived at the same time. God's word is always accurate. We can trust
it to be true, even in matters of science" This ludicrous article goes on to say that
the Bible proves that some dinosaurs survived the great flood (Noah) therefore
man and dinosaurs roamed the earth together!
Creation
Ministries International offers a six videotape set (each tape is called a
"session" for some reason) which describes each of the "six days
of the Creation" promising to let the viewer (purchaser, and they ain't cheap!) "Explore
each day of creation in fascinating detail. The Six Days of Genesis fills a
void in the creation student's library. It follows the six creation days, as
found in the first two chapters of the Bible, expounding each Scripture with
scientific facts and theologically sound doctrine." Whooo, Leroy, that
says it all! The website further states, " Creationist
research is having a global effect that is worrying the atheists and
secularists of this world. They have had it all their own way for over a
century but things are slowly changing. For almost twenty five years now,
Journal of Creation has been publishing cutting-edge creationist research that
has been fueling the war against evolution, creating little fires all around
the world, including Great Britain." This organization's founder is a (no longer
allowed to practice) medical doctor from Australia, a Dr. Weiland. Another genius,
a Dr. Gitt has produced his own version of Luther's famous Protestant Document. His is called "The 95 Theses
against Evolution".
In
thesis #4 this Gitt (note my sly use of
the Brit derogatory term for a rural nitwit) claims to refute Evolution by
stating that JBS Haldane, a famous
neo-Darwinian and atheist, had disproved his own theory, when his calculations
showed that for Evolution to have any validity it would have had to been in
operation for more than 1,000,000 years; clearly impossible, since as everyone
knows, the earth is only about 10,000 years old!
Thesis
#42 deals with radiocarbon dating. Gitt now, apparently forgetting his 10,000
year earth age, attempts to prove radioisotope dating unreliable because of
variances in "aging" the same sample. What he apparently fails to notice is that the dates
range from 516 million years to 1588 million years. Disregarding the factor of
three difference, these are all far older than he states the earth must be in
thesis #4!
Thesis
#75 states : Unnecessary beauty: "The unnecessary beauty occurring in nature is
an important criterion for intelligent creation. The naturalistic approach
fails to explain the development of unnecessary beauty. Natural selection would
favour exclusively practical mutations providing a survival advantage in some
manner. Unnecessary beauty would not be favoured or selected according to
evolution theory." Apparently this imbecile has never seen plumage
displays among birds, or the red butt of a baboon, or the mane of a lion, or
men flocking around a well built blonde. None of this is practical, it's all
about mating, with the most attractive getting the prom queen. (except in
Gitt's world) The "survival advantage he denies is the passing on of the
selected male's DNA.
Thesis
#76: "Intelligent Information. Since
all forms of life contain a code (RNA/DNA molecules) and the other laws of
information. (Laws of information?)
this clearly falls within the definition of information. We can therefore
conclude that there must be an intelligent originator sender." Why, you ask? Well, silly, because he
says so. Obviously he has not read some of the Facebook entries I've seen. Some
information indicates no intelligence whatever on the sender's part. This is
vintage Creationist gobbledygook clad in
psuedo-scientific hogwash. He rambles a
bit, about Biblical references to "God said" in Genesis and then
"proves his assertion with this: "The word said is in bold type to
emphasize how God created life on Earth by means of His word in the role of the
information sender." Ooohhh Kay.
Thesis #91:
The degeneration of human language. To shorten this heap of steaming dung, I'll
summarize: Language has gotten less
complex in later times than in earlier times. Older civilizations could
communicate more information with fewer words than is the case with modern
languages. This contradicts the evolutionary idea of development from simple
beginnings to greater complexity. Where to start? How about new
communication methods, print and visual
media make this entire statement irrelevant, null and void. looking at just
English, the language has gotten, not simpler, but far more complex in scope
and vocabulary. Gitt is just making shit up at this point.
#59 - A personal favorite of mine. Planetary rings: The planetary rings of all
four gas planets are demonstrably (says who?) short term phenomena. They cannot be older than 10,000 years. He
continues, but this is enough. He is so locked into the 10,000 year old earth,
that the solar system must be the same age! NASA (real scientists) says: "How
old are Saturn's rings? No one is quite sure. One possibility is that the rings
formed relatively recently in our Solar System's history, perhaps only about
100 million years ago when a moon-sized object broke up near Saturn. New
evidence, however, raises the possibility that some of Saturn's rings may be
billions of years old and so almost as old as Saturn itself. Inspection of
images by the Saturn-orbiting Cassini spacecraft indicates that some of
Saturn's ring particles temporarily bunch and collide, effectively recycling
ring particles by bringing fresh bright ices to the surface." Ahh Hell,
what do they know? All they did was to actually do science and send a
spacecraft to observe, vice some supernatural mumbo jumbo.
Thesis #94
"Conscience and Ethics: Conscience and ethics couldn't have evolved
in the merciless fight for survival that has been going on for years. Pure
instinct deprived of conscience would result in the elimination of the enemy
race. Conscience, on the other hand, keeps one from acting on purely
unscrupulous or selfish motives" Actually, Dr, Gitt, as Dr (real PhD)
Richard Dawkins points out in his latest book "The Selfish Gene"
that's exactly what the motive we call
"conscience" is - self interest and/or sacrifice in the moment for a
greater benefit later.
Thesis 86: Neanderthals
and Australomorphs "The descent
of man from apelike ancestors has still not been proved. Not a single
indisputable example of the fantastic intermediate forms published in the media
has been found........The hypothesis generally supported today is that
Neanderthals, Chimpanzees and modern humans share a common ancestor, however,
not a trace of these hypothetical ancestors has ever been found!" Well, Dr. Gitt is correct on this point.
Not a
trace has been found, but numerous traces. The fossil record of the
evolution of bipedal Homo Sapiens stretches back about 7 million years. Along
the way we meet Sahelanthropus Tchadensis back at the 7 million year point, (or
so) , Australopithecus Afarensis (numerous examples) , ca. 4 million or so,
Homo Habilis (the toolmaker) ca 2 million, a dead end branch or two along the
way (Paranthropus Boisei, Paranthropus Robustus), Heidleberg Man (Homo
Heidlebergensis) ca 350, 000, and whether he likes it or not, H. Sapiens and H.
Neanderthalensis, both in the 190, 000 range. Unfortunately, our slower, beetle
browed cousins didn't make it, but according to recent finds in borneo, Homo
Floresiensis (aka the Hobbitt) lasted until ca 18,000 yrs ago. No evidence? Sheeit, doc, we drownin' in it!
There
are about 90 more of Gitt's "Theses" each more ludicrous than the
previous. This, as all Creationist drivel, is the antithesis of science. One of the first hard
science classes we require kids to take in school is Biology (it might be
Chemistry, depending on the state). No
matter which course it is, both revolve around the scientific method. No lesser
light than Aristotle, 350 years before Christ, laid down precepts that are
still taught today for investigating the natural world. Among these concepts
are: The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena,
acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be
termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and
measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. What distinguishes
the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that
scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a
theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its
predictions prove false. The principal features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other
methods of obtaining knowledge are simple. Scientific researchers propose
hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to
test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These
steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any
particular experimenter. Creationists
ignore this and reverse the process. "Begin with the conclusion and reject
any real world data that contradicts your preconceived conclusion." This
isn't even bad science, it's not science at all. It's akin to rejecting the smallpox vaccine in
favor of sacrificing a goat to appease Mwabi, the God of childhood diseases. It's the reason
Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses die from treatable conditions.
In
summary, then, if we want our children to be competitive in the Sciences, we
need to teach them science. In a parallel story with similar head shaking
potential. the Pope just released the third book in his trilogy. He has
declared the Virgin Birth scientific fact, apparently based on exactly the same
scriptures available to all mankind for millennia. Of course one is free to
believe it or not, since it is also proffered as an article of faith.
Teaching creationism as any sort of
science to labile and unsophisticated children is another matter completely.
Judith
Hayes sums all this up nicely and simply, "If we are going to teach
creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the
stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.” Richard Dawkins,
evolutionary biologist, (author of The Ancestor's Tale, a superb read) puts it
rather more specifically: "There’s only one game in town as far as serious
science is concerned. It’s not that there are two different theories. No
serious scientist doubts that we are cousins of gorillas, we are cousins of
monkeys, we are cousins of snails, we are cousins of earthworms. We have shared
ancestors with all animals and all plants. There is no serious scientist who
doubts that evolution is a fact."
Unfortunately there are some non-scientists out there insisting that it
be taught in our schools.
Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!
No comments:
Post a Comment