The Odd Blog

And when our cubs grow / We'll show you what war is good for

Moronic Creationist Giggles

Posted by That Other Mike on 24/11/2007

I have to admit, this was me. I know, bad responses on my part, but it was late, and I wasn’t really in the mood to do long explanations.

What can I say? I’m not perfect.

Shockingly, Mr Sirius Snot… Nut… Sorry, Knotts, doesn’t actually address any of the linked points. I know, who’d believe it?

Anyway, here is a fuller response to his original… effort.

I find it intersting that Richard Dawkins includes this quote on his website:

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

It’s little surprise, given his rabidly egotistic dogmatism that he is quoting himself. The very font of wisdom, I’m sure. He thinks so anyhow. He’s a bit over-the-top, even for an atheist.

Classic Creationist tactic there – misquote and leave out the facts; first, it is a promotional site for the Richard Dawkins Foundation, and second, Dawkins doesn’t run the site himself. If he were to have actually done more than glance at the site and then throw a hysterical fit, Nutty would’ve seen that the contact address is in Savannah, Georgia, and that the site is run on a day to day basis by someone called Josh. So, while it may be the “official” RD site, the charge of hubris is rather overstated. And, of course, given his own style of posting, for Nutty to call anyone else “over the top” is rather ironic.

Another point of irony is the accusation of dogmatism; I’m sure I don’t need to explain that one. That’s always struck me as the rather funny thing about certain Creationists; because they cannot scientifically diminish evolution as an idea, they attempt to diminish it by calling a religion, which they do from a religious perspective, thus diminishing their own position.

I can’t help feeiling the quote is ironic.

Well, there’s a difference. Some people think that things are ironic.

You see, Richard Dawkins is a man of faith. He believes in Darwinism.

Wrong-o! Evolutionary biology has evidence coming out of its metaphorical ears. No faith is required.

He believes that man came about from evolution

Uh, no. He states that the preponderance of the evidence in favour of evolution is so strong that no other viewpoint is supportable. But if unsupported belief is your only paradigm, I suppose it’s only natural that it would appear to be everyone’s; what’s that old saying about only having a hammer?

and that God and religion in general are superstitions.

Finally, something vaguely truthful. Yes, RD calls religious belief a superstition. Wordnet gives the definition of a superstition as

    an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear

which fits the bill.

The problem is that evolution cannot be proven empyrically[sic].

Oh, dear. Someone doesn’t understand what empirically means. Empirical observation means that which is actually observable, in whatever fashion. Someone thinks that empirical testing means laboratory testing only. Science uses repeatable observations as the yardstick, and every observation leading to evolution is repeatable.

Not to mention, of course, that science does not prove anything. Proof is for lawyers and mathematicians. Scientists use weight of evidence.

No one can go back and prove it happened. No one sees it happening now.

Unless, of course, you count new varieties of antibiotic-resistant bacteria turning up every year. Furthermore, this ignorance is probably drawn from the caricature version of evolution that Creationists promulgate. Evolution is the accumulation of genetic changes over time. Even had we never seen speciation in action (which we have1), this would not dent the weight of accumulated evidence in its favour.

It may well be a myth. Darwin himself admitted that if the missing links could not be found that his theory was suspect.

It’d be nice to have a source quote here; it’s not like Creationists are above quote mining. I suspect he’s recycling the old, oft-refuted one about the eye; or believing in the existence of a quote because someone told him it existed. If it is the eye, then it bears mentioning that Darwin comprehensively answered the “problem” in the Origin of Species.

Dawkins believes in the face of a startling lack of evidence. He believes that the evidence will be found. It may yet be found, but he believes now without it. That is faith.

This is just a flat out lie; there are literal tonnes of evidence for evolution. And how, exactly, does being a Creationist give one the ability to read minds, anyway?

If Dawkins were a Christian, he’d be a Catholic, for not only is he a man of faith, he is also a man of tradition. He refuses to consider theories such as punctuated equilibrium, popularly dubbed “punk eek.”

I’m surprised Nutty can even spell punctuated equilibrium, let alone define it. My guess would be that he’s confusing it with saltationism or similar. Oh, and hard evidence here; I have a copy of The Blind Watchmaker, in which Dawkins defends PE over about 25 pages or so as being thoroughly Darwinian, while at the same time excoriating ignorant critics (that means you, Nutty). The chief difference in opinion between Gould and Dawkins was of the scale on which evolution occurs, and the reasons for PE; a minor difference of opinion between two academics which was blown so far out of proportion by the ignorant (you again, Sirius!) that it’s not even funny. You’re going to have to do better than arguing about something which you don’t get.

He believes in conventional, traditional Darwinism, in which speciation occurs by gradual natural selection.

Mind-reading, again, and not borne out by evidence.

Like the Catholics, tradition is more of the authority for him than the fundamentals of the faith. He even has a bible of sorts, The Origin of the Species, though he tends to throw in apocryphal works by himself as being just as authoritative. Yet it is faith.

Ditto, plus: again, Nutty, you are arguing from a religious perspective. Do you really think it wise to then mock religious perspectives? Not too smart, are ya?

I suppose the greatest cop-out is pretending that one kind of faith [faith in theoretical Darwinism posing as empyrical science] is less superstitious than another [faith in God].

*snort* Come back when you’ve got a leg to stand on. Hey, here’s an idea! Come back when your family line actually reaches human, and we can talk; in the meantime, your incoherent grunts of frustrated ignorance are just too, too silly to take seriously.

Quick edit because the html tags seem to have just gone a-wandering somehow.


1Culex pipiens subvarieties, for example, entirely isolated to the London Underground; or ring species, or HeLa, to name but three examples.

Advertisements

18 Responses to “Moronic Creationist Giggles”

  1. mek1980 said

    He also singularly fails to get science here. Cue surprised face.

  2. You see, Richard Dawkins is a man of faith. He believes in Darwinism.

    *snigger* Dawkins has also said (in The God Delusion) that were he provided with scientic evidence for the existence of God, he would admit he was wrong. That’s why he can’t be called an atheist fundamentalist. He then made the point that those who approach religion from a fundamental reading of the bible (lowercase ‘b’ my intention) would not do the same if science revealed that god didn’t exist. So, as our host says, Dawkins’ stance is not based on faith. It is that of reason — the grown-up replacement for blind faith.

  3. mek1980 said

    *gives Gary a biscuit*

    Exactamundo. What are you willing to bet that he’s never read a word of Dawkins? I wouldn’t quite be confident enough to put up the rent money, but it’d be pretty close.

  4. *gratefully accepts the proffered*

    I’d bet my Jammy Dodger on it… 😉

  5. *gratefully accepts the proffered biscuit*, I meant…

  6. mek1980 said

    Is Jammy Dodger some kind of Northern euphemism? 😀

  7. […] add ill-advised – mockery. I won’t deign to print his hubris in my blog, but you can read it here if you have the stomach for such rude […]

  8. mek1980 said

    *collapses with laughter as Sirius Snotts has a hissy fit*

    Let’s see… Moronic arsehole insults and is then offended when it’s dished right back? Gee, how did I see that one coming? I must be some kind of psychic.

  9. Dale Husband said

    Sirius zapped me with his crap as well. Look at the comments here:
    http://circleh.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/amphibians-as-a-support-for-evolution/

    Or you may prefer to read them here:
    http://circleh.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/a-useless-debate/

  10. Mike said

    For someone so obviously ignorant, he’s an arrogant little prick, isn’t he?

  11. Don’t these Creationist types know when they’re beat? Bunch of inbred jerks. *spits*

  12. Mike said

    Apparently not. It’s like worms; you chop them in half, and one side stays Creationist and the other one turns into ID.

  13. Sirius said

    Interesting how each of you simply continue to prove my points. You offer no reason why you should argue at all. You’ve not bothered to answer any of my points, though you’ve insults to spare. ;] Ah, blind faith. As for your points, Mr. Oops! I suppose now you were expecting me to take you seriously? I wonder if you would ever do ME the same courtesy? No?

    BTW, Darwin didn’t prove the evolution of the eye. read Origins again. He postulated how it might have come about and stated that we could not, in our ignorance, state that it could not have been possible. That’s not proof; that’s carefully making one’s position, by sheer rhetoric, unfalsifiable.

    Hear Darwin’s rhetoric or mine. Truth often sounds arrogant to those convinced of their ignorances and errors. And I am right.

    Here’s a proposition, at the risk of continuing to cast pearls before boorish swine: Instead of giving me a table of factoids and a few editorial comments, let’s actually give an argument worth hearing. You do know how to write a bleeding essay, I hope? I could address each item in your little stacked decks, but that would be nitpickery. I’ve a reason to be on this Earth and I shan’t waste my time with nits. Dragons are more fun to slay.

    Here’s my challenge: Read Origins again and how me how Darwin’s theory could be falsified. Read his own quid pro quos and tell me he didn’t make sure it could never happen. If you cannot show me how this could happen, his theory fails to meet the qualifications of a theory, since it cannot be falsified.

    Game?

    [DH, you can join the fun too, if you can keep from simply comparing me to cult leaders to mask the weakness of your position. I might even play nice.]

    — Sirius Knott

  14. Oh, darn, not the eye again…

  15. Mike said

    Sirius, you just called all of the numbers in Creationist Non-Argument Bingo.

    Interesting how each of you simply continue to prove my points. You offer no reason why you should argue at all.

    AKA “You’re wrong and you prove me right (even though I don’t have to actually put up an argument or evidence)”.

    You’ve not bothered to answer any of my points, though you’ve insults to spare.

    Also known as “I didn’t listen to a single criticism of my Creationism”.

    Ah, blind faith. As for your points, Mr. Oops! I suppose now you were expecting me to take you seriously? I wonder if you would ever do ME the same courtesy? No?

    AKA “You’re persecuting me, you wicked Atheist!”

    BTW, Darwin didn’t prove the evolution of the eye. read Origins again. He postulated how it might have come about and stated that we could not, in our ignorance, state that it could not have been possible. That’s not proof; that’s carefully making one’s position, by sheer rhetoric, unfalsifiable.

    AKA Pseudo-Scientific Posturing. A close relative of Pseudo-Philosophical Posturing.

    Hear Darwin’s rhetoric or mine. Truth often sounds arrogant to those convinced of their ignorances and errors. And I am right.

    AKA the unintentional funny, as well as “I’m right because I am, I am, I am!”

    Here’s a proposition, at the risk of continuing to cast pearls before boorish swine:

    Also known as the Pretend Compromise Made In Order To Make Oneself Look Reasonable.

    Instead of giving me a table of factoids and a few editorial comments, let’s actually give an argument worth hearing. You do know how to write a bleeding essay, I hope?

    The Condescension Gambit.

    I could address each item in your little stacked decks, but that would be nitpickery. I’ve a reason to be on this Earth and I shan’t waste my time with nits. Dragons are more fun to slay.

    Otherwise called You’re Not Worth My Time. Usually done after a lengthy response.

    Here’s my challenge: Read Origins again and how me how Darwin’s theory could be falsified. Read his own quid pro quos and tell me he didn’t make sure it could never happen. If you cannot show me how this could happen, his theory fails to meet the qualifications of a theory, since it cannot be falsified.

    The Strawman.

    Bingo!

  16. Dale Husband said

    “DH, you can join the fun too, if you can keep from simply comparing me to cult leaders to mask the weakness of your position. I might even play nice.”

    Yeah, sure, whatever! As long as you think of everyone else who rejects your dogmas as inferior to you, you will be treated with the same contempt in return. My position is not weak and hardly needs masking, but thank you for the denialist rhetoric once again.

    “Here’s my challenge: Read Origins again and how me how Darwin’s theory could be falsified. Read his own quid pro quos and tell me he didn’t make sure it could never happen. If you cannot show me how this could happen, his theory fails to meet the qualifications of a theory, since it cannot be falsified.”

    If YOU have read Darwin’s classic book, prove it by quoting from the specific passages in it where Darwin DID state how his theory could be discredited. You should know them, since Creationists often refer to them in their propaganda. So put up or shut up!

  17. Mike said

    *waits for Sirius to start frantically Googling*

  18. […] term loosely) who reminded me of that joke was Sirius Knotts, whom you may have seen being given a good fisking […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: