Creationism shows ignorance or willful deception

by

Look, all you anti-science types out there.  Your creationist excuses are missing the mark.  If you don’t want to sound completely idiotic you need to understand a few things.  I’ll only go into a couple here, but it brings up the point that your arguments only work with people who are science illiterates.

       #1- Evolution has nothing to do with the speculations on the origin of life.  NOTHING!  No one knows how life began, although there are ideas and hunches.  Evolution is what happened after that point (or points).  So making an issue of the competing ideas about how life began is not “refuting evolution”.  It is “looking like a moron”. It is “demonstrating your ignorance”.  OK?

       #2- Monkeys and keyboards.  Yes, I know you love to harp on how unlikely it would be for monkeys to produce “Macbeth” (or whatever) by randomly typing on a keyboard.  You are demonstrating your ignorance in several ways here.  Again

First of all, you have a set “goal” for your semi-trained monkeys.  Evolution is not about goals, it is about what works.  

Second, you are forgetting (or unaware) that the evolutionary process SAVES the letters that work (which is why the play analogy fails).  That’s right.  When monkeys hit the “right” key, that letter gets saved for the next attempt.  Each “correct” letter makes the play slightly better at surviving than the plays that are not fortunate enough to have that letter.  (This is a drastic oversimplification, but YOU creationists are the ones who keep bringing this up and trying to make it fit into your artificially brief time span.) 

Nature is like the editor looking over each draft and saving the words that are produced in the confusion and saving them for the next draft.  Then, the randomly produced individual words can be “randomly” placed (which isn’t really random at all, since nature is producing conditions that affect the placement, but we’ll ignore that for now) into a draft and “selected” for phrases that make sense.  And so on. 

A single bit of “rightness” is enough to bring some advantage and be reproduced.  An eye doesn’t need to be a complete eye to give an advantage over total blindness.  Just a bit of photosensitivity is better than nothing, and then a slight modification (a dent) that lets the eyespot “know” which direction the light is coming from gives a little more advantage, and a lens to focus that light gives a little more, etc.  So the pathetic claim that a “half an eye is useless” or a “half a wing is not useful” is complete BS. 

You’re welcome.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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: