Fanatical Anti-Christian Evolutionist Idiots
On January 07, 2008 in In the News, Science Related
I’m amazed at how smart people can be so friggin’ stupid sometimes. I stumbled across an article today on www.turkishpress.com called “US ‘doomed’ if creationist president elected: scientists.”
The whole story follows the victory of Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee in the opening round to pick a Republican for the White House. Huckabee, who is an open Christian, caused sirens and alerts to go off for many Evolutionists when he recently found favor.
“The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health…”, said Gilbert Omenn, a University of Michigan professor.
These types of statements are utterly stupid, to say the least. There are two types of science: Operational Science, such as investigating the effects of smoking on a diseased persons lungs, and Historical Science, such as pulling a fossil from the earth and deciding what it was, how it died, and what happened to its children.
These two forms of Science are fundamentally different. Operational science deals with direct observation and testing. Anybody can plop out a lung from a smoker and see the effects of smoke inhalation. But to claim that man evolved from pond-scum billions of years ago will require a much more different approach, and this is obvious to anybody with half an ounce of grey-matter.
Gilbert continues, “I would worry that a president who didn’t believe in the evolution arguments wouldn’t believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin.” I agree, if we had a president who didn’t accept observable, repeatable, and conclusive science, we would have a very large problem, but Evolution doesn’t count, since it isn’t repeatable, observable, or conclusive in any way.
It’s laughable when Evolutionists take an extremist position that we are all doomed if Evolution isn’t taught with every possible opportunity. What has Evolution given us? It hasn’t cured diseases, it hasn’t helped us peer deeper into the human anatomy or physiology in a way that can help cure paralysis. It hasn’t explained anything. I’m open to suggestions, really. If anybody knows of any achievement today that has made our world better on account of Evolution, please tell me.
Meanwhile, REAL Scientists are doing REAL science and curing illnesses. They are creating instruments to help repair human bodies on the nano-level. They are discovering relationships between diseases and genes by investigating the human genome. They are creating ways for the less-fortunate to be more independent.
Gilbert seems to think that a Scientist who believes the Earth was Created, cannot do REAL Science. Since that is the case, he stands against an entire history of Theists who started the major branches of Science, who started the most reputable colleges, and who gave us the basic understanding of the world around us. These accomplishments came largely by way of Christians and Theists, not by Evolutionists.
Newton’s belief in God didn’t deter him from gaining amazing insight into Gravity. Francis Bacon’s belief didn’t stop him from creating what we now know as the Scientific Method. Raymond Damadian’s faith didn’t stop him from pioneering the MRI which is now used in practically every major Hospital and saving life’s.
The greatest thing America needs to fear is not Scientists who believe in God, or a Christian President. We need to be worried about complete idiots running our Science education system. People who are too stupid to understand simple issues, and cannot be intellectually honest enough to admit that Evolution serves absolutely no guidance to science today.
I’ll close with a quote from Dr. Philip S. Skell, an Evolutionist:
“I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
Philip S. Skell
“Why do we invoke Darwin?“, The Scientist 2005, 19(16):10
Remember: when you don’t have a rational argument against the theory of evolution, wave your hands around and pretend that you do.
Thanks for giving us a bit more insight into how a “rational” evolutionists thinks
I guess your suggestion gives us a bit more insight into the thought process that you employ for your discussions and rationality.
Do me a favor though, please keep the waving to a minimum here. We enjoy logical discourse, but you’re still welcome to hang around
Jonathan
Evolution is a theory yes, however Creationism is even less than that. It is ignorance, based on faulty Faith. Religion is religion, and science is science. That may sound silly, but Religion is about faith, which in reality has no basis. Faith is belief, and nothing else.
I don’t fault you for believing, however when you try and cram your beliefs down everyone elses throats. That’s when you become obnoxious idiots.
Fundamentalism has no basis in reality. I cannot change your mind about that. You have chosen to believe what you do, and that is your business. However when you try and force others to believe in your false religion, than it is high time you are stopped in your tracks.
[...] Sturmer responded to my article Fanatical Anti-Christian Evolutionist Idiots, so I felt it was necessary to make his voice heard, and address his claims. Below is his response, [...]
Granted post 1 & 2 were poking fun…but be careful when generalizing. There are equally pushy and unaware pleople from every ism, ology and school of thought who do crappy things to be right and win arguments (winning by making other smaller). The only logical target for your issues with creationism and christianity and their dissemination “styles” is with those who did it to you. Why not become very versed in conversational discourse, how to deal with specious people and their “holier than thou” talk and be effective, instead of posting nonsense like the above. Work at being more effective at defending you own view point….better yet, arrive at a point where defending it is not needed. You post says way more about you than it does about the authors of 1 & 2.
Dale,
Different posts serve different purposes. This post wasn’t made to defend my views, but rather to point out the ignorance and incoherence of certain methods used by those who criticize my views.
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan
Sorry..I think I got this wrong. I’m a noob to the blogging scene. My post was a response to Ken Sturmer comment!
I think your article was cool! I’m not a christian but I totally agree with you on the so called “Science vs God” argument that some people insist exists …. when it’s clear to me that they (Science & God) can quite happily live in the same space without treading on each other toes!
How might I have better responded to Ken’s spurious remarks?
I love you programming vids too BTW!
Thanks, Dale
“The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health…”, said Gilbert Omenn, a University of Michigan professor.
“These types of statements are utterly stupid, to say the least.”
I think Dr. Omenn (IF he is a Doctor - I’m assuming he is) is referring to rational thought.
“Smoking, burning tobacco, flames your lungs. This could be what makes people have shorter lives!”
“If you split chromosome 2, found in human DNA, it’ll still serve as two valid chromosomes… that’s 24 chromosomes, same as the ape!”
I’m no biologist (hate the subject - Physics is my field), so forgive me if I get any technical terms wrong. I still think Dr. Omenn was referring to rational thought.
“It hasn’t cured diseases, it hasn’t helped us peer deeper into the human anatomy or physiology in a way that can help cure paralysis.”
Okay, I hate these type of sentences. You can’t cure a disease without understanding the mechanics of how an organism works (obviously). If you are going to suggest “How will learning how we evolved help us cure diseases?”, then I’m going to take a 50-50 shot here, so forgive me. Like I said, I’m no biologist (though, I’m not clueless). Anyway:
Knowing the history of a species - how it evolved - can give a doctor a lot of information about a subject. It’ll provide us with our previous states and tell us why certain medicines react the way they do. It’ll tell us “It’s not because it is, it’s because this happened to make it what is currently is.” I’m basically talking about work arounds or alternate solutions to a problem. I mean, the more information the better, y’know?
Oh and, just to poke fun at what you said: Of course it can’t cure diseases, it’s a theory, not a medicine or doctor. ^^
And, please don’t say “What has [noun] does for us?” - it reminds me too much of James Taggart, one of the most vile scum in the history of literature.
(If you don’t know who James Taggart is, - though I doubt that - then read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_in_Atlas_Shrugged#James_Taggart)
Oh, and sorry for grave digging - I just couldn’t help it. ^^
PLEASE tell me you weren’t being serious when you said this:
//What has Evolution given us? It hasn’t cured diseases, it hasn’t helped us peer deeper into the human anatomy or physiology in a way that can help cure paralysis. It hasn’t explained anything. I’m open to suggestions, really. If anybody knows of any achievement today that has made our world better on account of Evolution, please tell me.//
Flu shots, cancer research, evolutionary algorithms, artificial intelligence advancements, antibiotics, immunology, agriculture, explanation of how species change over time… the list goes on.
SilentWatcher
I’m absolutely serious when I say Evolution has given us absolutely nothing that is of any functional value in the medical world. You seem to think that without the understanding of evolution we would have never created Flu Shots, and Antibiotics? Please tell me how either of those two are related to evolutionary theory (more specifically common-ancestry).
Keep in mind, when I say “Evolution”, I’m referring to the idea that all of the biosphere today has descended over time from an original ancestor 4+bya. I’m not referring to simple variations in a gene-pool, or genetic drift, yata yata. None of that is evolution, none of it turns molecules into man or amoeba into mice. So if you don’t mind, let’s stay away from equivocal usage of the word “Evolution”, and actually say what we mean.
As far as evolutionary algorithms, what does that have to do with anything? Would you call me a Scientist if I came up with an algorithm charting the diversification of pixies over the last 4 billion years?
Artificial Intelligence has Evolution to thank? I’m really interested in this, seeing how my profession is Computer Science - please, educate me here.
How about this, Silentwatcher…instead of tossing a bunch of random “examples” out there, why don’t you actually tell me HOW any of your examples would not have been possible without the idea that man and banana’s share a common ancestor.
Best Wishes,
Jonathan Sampson
Interesting read. The way I look at it is (in regards to evo. theory and creationism) is that some people can give loose or basic examples of either, but no one can fully prove one or the other. Christians can say they can prove creation through this or that, as evo. people do too, but there is no concrete, 100% fool proof evidence for either. There can’t be because one relies on faith and the other is still a theory (as Sturmer points out). As for science and religion, I see no problem. Others must somehow.
I generally avoid discussions/debates over this whole issue because my answer is basically above. The issue Gilbert points out in regards to Huckabee is just silly.
Btw, I’m not a North American and have little care for the US Presidency
Jokav,
Neither can technically be “proven”, because nothing in Historical Science can be “proven”. I cannot prove that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president, or that he even existed. What I can do is offer eye-witness testimony, and maybe a photo, but neither of those would “prove” that he existed.
This is the problem with Historical Science, you cannot concretely demonstrate that something took place in the past. All you can do, is determine whether the evidence today is explainable by theoretical events of the past.
In the Creation Model, we have a near-instant creation in the past, so we need to look and see if the evidence is consistent with this idea. Turns out, we find radioactive material that has a very short-lived half-life intact in low-granites, which are thought to form slowly. This is consistent with an instant creation idea, and inconsistent with early-hot-earth ideas proposed by secular scientists.
In the Creation Model we have the Noachian Deluge, which explains fossilized marine-life on the top of practically every mountain. Many of these fossils show clams intact, which is really only possible if they were buried rapidly, which is again consistent with the Noachian Model.
Creation doesn’t rely on faith, it rely’s on a dedication to seeking REAL answers, and not narrative stories of the past.
Evolution also has supporting evidence, like Homology. If we are all from a common ancestor, we might expect to see homologous structures, like the forearms of pretty much every armed-creature.
Unfortunately for the evolutionists they can’t really explain why some features aren’t homologous, and why others are. They forward the tautological statement, “Only the strong survive, so if they survived, it must be because they are strong.” Phrases like that don’t mean anything, and cannot explain a mechanism or model - so they’re useless.
So in the end, one must decide which explains the evidence better. The Creation Model, or the Evolution Model. The Creation Model has never needed to be changed, whereas the evolution model can be modified to fit data like a fog fits a landscape.
Add A Comment