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.