Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Evolution and so-called 'Creation Science / Creationism'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Evolution and so-called 'Creation Science / Creationism'

    The 'Creation Science' people (an oxymoron deserves quotation marks)
    have been out in force in the U.S. news recently. Considering the size
    of the debate that has boiled in this Forum from time to time, I thought
    I'd share an amusing article with all of you:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/tripp01082005.html

    Nice use of irony and sarcasm.

    LSN

  • #2
    That's got to be one of the most concise (and humorous) arguments for evolution I have ever seen. Thanks, LSN!

    "But what's so awful about sharing genetic material with a gorilla? Gentle-natured creatures with great parenting skills and an innate tendency to get enough roughage in their diets, who could ask for more?"

    Pure gold, that.

    "Once scientists finished mapping the human genome... the verdict is delivered: we evolved, with the possible exception of my uncle Steve, from the same hairy little fellows that chimps did. And those hairy little fellows evolved from the same squidgy little organisms that mollusks, juniper bushes, and penguins came from, too."

    Creationists are best at denying facts. But what gets me is that they don't need to. I mean, isn't the seven-day creation thing basically an outline of evolutionary development? Heavens & Earth, then Water, then Sea Life, then Land Life, then Man...

    And besides, wouldn't the omnipotent entity that created logic and reason and made everything in creation adhere to those laws make us in an equally logical fashion? Why would he make everything so logical and then have the instance of our coming into being be a flash of illogical magic? I honestly don't know why creationists have a problem with evolution. I think it goes hand-in-hand with the Genesis.
    "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
    --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

    Comment


    • #3
      I can't back this up with links, but last week a friend of mine showed me a newspaper article about a new Creationist museum in America. They'd decided that when Adam and Eve were chased out of Paradise they had to contend with T-Rex... and they had little models of dinosaurs with saddles on their backs, to show how they co-existed with humans. If it hadn't been so scary, it might have been funny. :(

      Ooh, no, here you go:

      http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...02/weden02.xml
      "That which does not kill us, makes us stranger." - Trevor Goodchild

      Comment


      • #4
        This probably shows why I have always felt an affinity with roundworms.

        Seriously, though - I've looked into this recently, for an essay on 'positivism'. Some sociologist in a textbook I had rather rashly stated the Darwin's Theory was an example of 'realist' thinking as it could not be verified and tested according to Karl Popper's definition of a proper scientific theory, i.e. a statement which is capable of being proved wrong.

        So I googled for 'Popper' and 'Darwin' - incidentally found that Popper had changed his mind on this - originally thinking that 'survival of the fittest' was a tautology, but then deciding that actually it was capable of being tested.

        Anyway, my main point is that a large number of the sites my search turned up were actually Creationist ones (although quite a few were very sly and did not openly advertise themselves as such). Imagine attempting to use Popper's refutability rule to help 'prove' that the world was made in six days (with one day's rest). These people have no shame. I suppose the implication is that if Popper rejected Darwin (they carefully neglect to mention his recanting) then anything goes. Might as well believe that the world was made out of ice cream by a giant wombat last Tuesday lunchtime!
        \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

        Comment


        • #5
          Nonsense! It's Giant Wombats all the way down! :lol:

          LSN

          Comment


          • #6
            Keep in mind that there are different types of creationists. Some believe that the 7 day account is actual 24 hour periods. Some say it is ages of the earth.

            There are theist evolutionists. The definition is self explanatory. There are those that say that evolution cannot be true by definition as evolution is mindless by definition.

            I have not looked into this in a long time, but my recollection is that there is and/or was huge gaps in transitional species, that the fossil record showed species jumps. I don't know what the current science shows.

            The one thing that always got me was: how does a species evolve an arm? Unless there is a species jump, the arm would be useless for a long time until it fully or at least partially evolved.

            Anyway, like I said, I haven't looked into this for a long time, so I would be interested in seeing what others have to say.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Patrick
              Keep in mind that there are different types of creationists. Some believe that the 7 day account is actual 24 hour periods. Some say it is ages of the earth.
              I've always thought the idea that the 7-day account as a metaphor made perfect sense. Creationists have always confused me.

              Originally posted by Patrick
              There are those that say that evolution cannot be true by definition as evolution is mindless by definition.
              And those who would say that, I think, would actually be the true 'mindless.' :lol:

              Originally posted by Patrick
              I have not looked into this in a long time, but my recollection is that there is and/or was huge gaps in transitional species, that the fossil record showed species jumps. I don't know what the current science shows.
              Back in November, scientists found what many have dubbed to be the missing link in Barcelona, Spain.

              "Great apes are thought - on the basis of genetic and other evidence - to have separated from another primate group known as the lesser apes some time between 11 and 16 million years ago...

              "It is fascinating, therefore, for a specimen like Pierolapithecus to turn up right in this window."


              SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4014351.stm
              "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
              --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

              Comment


              • #8
                People who prate about transitional fossil records should get out more.
                The creationism people are very fond of it, but it's as logically unstable
                as most of the rest of their argument.

                FYI, here's a link where you might start if you want to begin educating
                yourself on the subject.

                http://www.theness.com/articles/crea...-nejs0201.html

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by L_Stearns_Newburg
                  People who prate about transitional fossil records should get out more.
                  Okay, well, yeah, but I always get excited when 'missing link' holes are filled in. Once we have a clear, successive fossil record showing our evolution, the creationists will have to shut up. They'll be forced to accept the fact that the 7-day Genesis thing is a metaphor specifically describing evolution. Might open their minds a little. Maybe they'll realize it was their God who created science and so they shouldn't be so damned afraid of it.

                  That would be sweet. :P
                  "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                  --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DeeCrowSeer
                    I can't back this up with links, but last week a friend of mine showed me a newspaper article about a new Creationist museum in America. They'd decided that when Adam and Eve were chased out of Paradise they had to contend with T-Rex... and they had little models of dinosaurs with saddles on their backs, to show how they co-existed with humans. If it hadn't been so scary, it might have been funny. :(
                    Religious freedom or not, but forgive if I question those people's sanity. And such people ARE AMONGST us! No need to look out for aliens, the wierdos already here are frightening! This is nearly more than MM could invent in his stories!
                    What's more - they have considerable influence in the White House, I 'm sure.
                    Google ergo sum

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      No doubt the Creationists have come up with some bullshit to explain why Genesis gives two contradictory accounts of creation in the first two pages....
                      \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        www.answersingenesis.com/museum

                        This made me quite angry. Bloody fanatics...

                        http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...nt_believe.asp
                        Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

                        Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I don't really care what these twazzocks believe. It may be that only an absolutely literal belief in every word of the Bible is all that stands between them and apostasy, as they realize that if A: (Genesis) is nothing more than a Creation myth, or even a collection of Creation myths from around the Middle East, one amongst many, then B: (the rest of the Bible) might well be nothing more than a collection of myths, legends and gossip as well.

                          I get annoyed that they're trying to add yet more nonsense to the brainwashing of fresh young minds in schools, not only in the US, but also in the UK and Europe. Dumbing down, it's called.

                          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3825461.stm

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If our hitherto common understanding of the origin of mankind, and indeed of the WORLD's creation, has thus become torn asunder it all makes doubly clear why many European governments approach the current US administration with equal caution as with other irrational religious fundamentalist regimes.
                            There's still space here, come all you who would! We can handle a few more refugees. For those who stay let me assure you that we have 40 years of experience of smuggling forbidden literature into countries where ration and enlightenment were banned....
                            We are also more than willing to send you people like Berlusconi and Ian Paisly as reinforcements for hate and brain-washing campaigns, you needn't give them back.
                            Google ergo sum

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Watch what you say, L'E. If "debates" like this one keep defining American cultural and political life, I may ask to live in your basement for a few years until the mania of our present fundamentalist regime passes. :D

                              Seriously, though...

                              Putting the word "science" in the terminology does not make "creation science" scientific, nor does it automatically make the rationale stand on equal footing to established scientific explanations. That element of the political right seems to think if you say something enough, it becomes true or accurate, regardless of how ridiculous an idea is.

                              Sadly, the joke is on us, because the strategy seems to be working. Too many people want science, education, and the humanities to simply validate what they already believe to be true, despite all evidence to the contrary. This "debate" (I'll continue to couch it in quotation marks) is indicative of that mindset taken to an extreme.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X