If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Why evolution is true)   Creationist lists biologists who don't accept natural selection. Another biologist writes them and asks them if that is so. "Annie Hall" hilarity ensues he publishes the replies   ( whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Annie Hall, Discovery Institute, selections, Marshall McLuhan, multicellular organisms, innovations, Michael Lynch, Rick Warren  
•       •       •

10067 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Dec 2012 at 12:29 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-12-12 12:29:10 PM  
9 votes:
Professional creationists are, without exception, liars. They are aware that the things they are saying are false.

The majority of creationists are simply not knowledgeable about the topic, and repeat what they have been told because they have never sought out the relevant information.

If you are a creationist, you are either uninformed (most) or dishonest (the few professional creationists), but either way, you are mistaken. Evolution happens, evolution has happened, and evolution will continue to happen. Natural selection is one of the most significant causes of evolution, and it results in adaptation to local environments. Darwin was absolutely correct about that.

None of this has any bearing on the existence, actions, or intent of any supernatural deities. If God exists and was involved in some way in the existence of humans, He used evolution to do it. I don't know if God exists, that's up to you to decide for yourself. But evolution definitely does exist. Offspring are not all "clones" of their parents; each generation is slightly different from the one before it, and those slight differences are cumulative.

There are several people on Fark who are experts in one or another aspects of evolution (the observed process) and/or evolutionary theory (the explanation for the observed process), so if you're not certain what it's all about, please ask questions.
2012-12-12 10:38:52 AM  
5 votes:
There is very little funny about "christian scientists" - they are simply flat-out snake-oil hacks. They don't care about facts - only maintaining an illusion of authority among their followers. Its another example of the one-eyed man being king in the land of the blind. The followers are by and large ignorant and will never question what is being shoveled at them.

Scientists can play the devil's advocate and take the position of YEC for argument's sake at which point it quickly becomes apparent there is not a shred of physical evidence/proof for the existence of a Abrahamic god/Jesus/Holy Ghost.

"True" christians on the other hand will almost never allow themselves to even consider that god might not be real or the bible untrue and/or that evolution is real. They surround themselves in a protective bubble and support the voices that echo the bible and reinforce their faith-based knowledge of "what is true".

So we get "institutions" like Discovery Institute whose sole purpose is to bilk religious folk out of their hard-earned dollars and maintain the continual goal-post moving necessary to evolve christianity alongside modern science and its advancements.
2012-12-12 01:01:15 PM  
2 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: [www.sojones.com image 390x285]

"One word, Poindexter - Crocoduck. Let's see you evolve your way out of that one."

Oh, can I post this now?!?!?

i457.photobucket.comView Full Size
2012-12-12 09:22:52 PM  
1 vote:

IlGreven: "Evolution is Intelligent Design!"

Except it's not. Unless you think the "design" of making many many more items than can possibly survive and then killing off the combinations that don't work well, while keeping and reproducing the survivors is good design. :-/

In a way, evolution is a lot like throwing shiat and seeing what sticks, except the shiat can undergo some random changes, and the ones that stick can pass on their stickiness to their offspring. Not really a good design methodology, unless you a.) don't intend to mess with the system once you start it and b.) don't care how the system ends up (i.e. have no intended design goals).

B.) is kind of the antithesis of design, no?
2012-12-12 05:31:02 PM  
1 vote:

I drunk what: feel free to join in with him to condescend and slander all creationists, theists, deists, whatever

you can put lipstick on a religious idiot pig, but it's still just a derp

Considering his statement explicitly said that acceptance of evolution has no bearing on the existence/non-existence of God or whatever deity you are choosing to describe.

I drunk what: you and FloydA have fun belittling and slandering anyone that has a different philosophical view than you, after all he is the grand pope master of science, you can learn a lot from him

Apparently your memory really is shiat. I have no interest in slandering people for the act of believing in God, never have. I'm pointing out again, for the millionth time, that you are the one who insists on using the absolute broadest sense of the term "creationist" possible in order to cover any and all theist/deist belief. Then get offended when people mock creationism, despite it being patently obvious the much more narrow sense of the term that is being used.

Kome: entropic_existence: And I'm not a Creationist. I have no idea why you keep wanting to paint me with that brush.

Dafuq? Someone tries to paint you as a creationist?

*looks up*
Oh... It's the idiot who hasn't figured out the Wason after this many years. Never mind.

At most I occasionally entertain thoughts of Deism in my more pious moments. Otherwise I'm an Agnostic. But yeah, given I actually went through the effort to get a PhD in molecular evolution and all. But again he wants to try and claim all Christian theists as "creationists" since they believe in God as creator. Nevermind that this flies in the face of philosophical and historical usage for at least the last 100-150 years.
2012-12-12 04:59:54 PM  
1 vote:

Elzar: entropic_existence: Don't toss all scientists who are Christians (or other religions) in the same pot. I know plenty who are both good scientists, good people, and not hacks and snake-oil sales-people.

Sorry but being a christian is just farking insane - doubly so if you're a scientist. Shame on them, they know better and yet willfully choose to enable homophobes, bigots and liars.

I disagree. I'm about as athy as anyone can be, but "Christian" is far too broad a taxon to conclude that it is always insane. Some people are "culturally Christian," raised in a Christian family, and benefit from the social structure and camaraderie that is available through religion. Some admire the celebratory, symbolic, and artistic elements of religion. Some, as Malinowski noted, engage in religious ritual in order to relieve anxiety in situations where their own abilities are insufficient to guarantee success in some dangerous endeavor.

Those are predominantly emotional reasons, and are therefore "non-rational," but not necessarily "irrational."

Now biblical literalism, by contrast, that IS insane. It not only conflicts with all of the available evidence, but it is not even internally consistent. In order to be a biblical literalist, one must believe several mutually exclusive claims simultaneously. Biblical literalism is absolutely nuts. It's also counter to a couple thousand years of Christian teachings, so creationists are not just in conflict with science and reality, they are even in conflict with religion.

One can be a perfectly rational Christian (depending on how one defines the term "Christian"). Theodosius Dobzhansky is the obvious example.

Creationism is insane, and creationists call themselves "Christians," but it's inaccurate to allow the creationists to discredit all Christians by association.

2012-12-12 03:03:58 PM  
1 vote:

entropic_existence: And I'm not a Creationist. I have no idea why you keep wanting to paint me with that brush.

Dafuq? Someone tries to paint you as a creationist?

*looks up*
Oh... It's the idiot who hasn't figured out the Wason after this many years. Never mind.
2012-12-12 02:03:11 PM  
1 vote:
people.virginia.eduView Full Size

Until a creationist has a reasonable rebuttal to this, I don't care what they have to say on the issue. Too many simply don't understand what it is they're saying, and don't understand the basics of what they're arguing against.
2012-12-12 01:39:41 PM  
1 vote:

error 303: I know a guy with a Master's of Science degree in biology from the Univesity of Alabama who's a straight up young Earth creationist. It's really weird.

No it isn't.
2012-12-12 01:27:44 PM  
1 vote:
I saw this bumper sticker coming home from a wedding this weekend:

i.ebayimg.comView Full Size

I guess the one about lying doesn't count?
2012-12-12 01:06:06 PM  
1 vote:

roc6783: Not to speak for anyone else, but there is a difference between scientists who are Christian and "christian scientists" and would guess the original comment was referring to the second kind.

There's also a difference between scientists who are Christian, "christian scientists," and Christian Scientists, due to an unfortunate bit of effective branding...
2012-12-12 12:51:36 PM  
1 vote:
The saddest thing: the creationist nitwit shows up in the comments and digs in his heels.
2012-12-12 12:49:03 PM  
1 vote:
We are supposed to get a new flu vaccine every single year because the flu virus mutates and is different every year. How is this not proof enough that evolution is real?
2012-12-12 12:47:17 PM  
1 vote:

roc6783: FloydA: ***snip***

If what you say is true, then why don't we have monkey butlers, hmmmm?

///I don't want to argue with creationists, I just want a monkey butler.

i105.photobucket.comView Full Size

Science: 1
Creationism: 0
2012-12-12 12:45:19 PM  
1 vote:

error 303: I know a guy with a Master's of Science degree in biology from the University of Alabama who's a straight up young Earth creationist. It's really weird.

Think I found your problem.

My first non-TA teaching gig was at a university college (halfway between a college and a full university). The very first person to graduate with a B.Sc. from that institution turned out to be a creationist, and he came back to his alma mater with a whole display. They room they gave him was as far from the Science department as possible.

I got my picture in the paper arguing with him. His responses didn't make a whole lot of sense. However, I got the sense that he was probably a nice guy underneath all the willful ignorance (he was Canadian, after all).

The one thing I took offense to was the poster on the wall describing non-believers as "wicked". Well fark you too, buddy.
2012-12-12 12:36:17 PM  
1 vote:
I know a guy with a Master's of Science degree in biology from the Univesity of Alabama who's a straight up young Earth creationist. It's really weird.
2012-12-12 11:40:36 AM  
1 vote:
Those scientists are using big words and logic. It's no wonder IDers are confused.
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.