The "Logic" of Christians Is The Perfect Argument Against Intelligent Design.

Excuse the red font, but in this post that’s how I’m going to distinguish between my words and those of Larry Amon—a two-bit Christian commentator for that awful “Examiner” site that any brain damaged biped can write for. Specifically, he writes for the Baltimore Christian Conservative Examiner. I came across his “Religion and Science: 101” article when I was scouring the newswire, as I am wont to do, for any stories about intelligent design and its occasional encroachments on public education curricula. I have decided to comment on this guy’s article not because he’s famous by any means, but because his remarks contain some typical Christian idiocy that I'd like to condescendingly ridicule. So, like a teacher grading a horrible paper handed in by a student who technically isn’t mentally retarded, but close, I’m taking a red “pen” to each and every single one of this adult’s sentences because pretty much all of them are complete crap. Larry’s words are obviously the ones in black font, and his original piece of shit can viewed here. Without further ado, here is Larry’s “paper.”

Some in the scientific community have been quick to call intelligent design just a new form of creationism. [There are more than just some scientists who call intelligent design a new form of creationism. That is to say, just about every reputable one.] In a way, there is some truth to that. [There is more than some truth to that.] Intelligent design is a theory that works with creationism but there is much more to it than that. [FALSE: There is more to it, but not much more. Intelligent Design is a vaguer rehashing of creationism. It junks the Adam and Eve bullshit, but still presupposes an intelligent designer/god.] Intelligent design however is not in and of itself religious. [FALSE: Any “research” paradigm that automatically ascribes phenomena to intelligent agency is inherently religious.]

Intelligent design is a way of addressing the issue that science can not. [FALSE: Intelligent design can’t address shit. In order to determine whether the universe is intelligently designed, one would have to know—for contrast—what a non-designed or what an unintelligently designed universe looks like. There is no way to know what any of these would look like.] Evolution simply can not answer the question of how it all started. [Technically true, but this is a junk statement because evolution does not purport to “answer how it all started.” Pointing out that evolution doesn’t explain abiogenesis is like noting that the Pythagorean Theorem doesn’t explain how to bake corn muffins. It’s a virtually meaningless proposition.]

You have Christians who believe in creationism, that is those who literally take the account of six days of creation from Genesis to be the origins of Earth and the Universe. [Yup.] There are also Christians who believe in evolution and those who believe God used evolution through creationism. [Yup.] Christian, agnostic or atheist, no matter how you look at the issue of our origins you are left with the question, where did it all start? [Yup.] In Ben Steins [sic] Expelled, the top evolutionists either had no answers or their best guess was aliens. [FALSE: They had many good answers, but that cocksucker Stein edited the shit out of the clips of people such as Richard Dawkins to skewer what they actually said.] But they never answer where the aliens came from. [This is a tense shift, and your conclusion is based on a false premise.] They simply push the problem back one level. [Whatever the fuck this means.]

Christians nor anyone else should fear science. [Uh huh.] True science is just the explanation from a human perspective on how our world and universe work. [Fine, but this is a strangely postmodernist assertion coming from a Christian wingnut such as yourself.] Everyone has an agenda though, even scientists. [The agenda of scientists is to ascertain the truth. Even if they are motivated by ego, the great thing about the scientific community is that it rewards the true and critiques the false.] So sometimes science pushes an agenda rather than the truth. [FALSE, asshole. Truth is the agenda.] Beyond the theory of evolution being the only theory that is allowed, consider abortion. [As opposed to what other theories? Intelligent design? That’s not a theory, but a dogshit hypothesis.] Science can and does show pretty clearly that a baby is alive and a separate life from the mother the whole nine months, from conception to birth but somehow scientists don’t push for an and to abortion. [Non sequitur and a red herring. The (varied) positions of scientists on abortion are not even remotely at issue here.] They sometimes even find ways to try to diminish the life of a baby. [FALSE: What are you talking about? Wasn’t this originally some drivel about intelligent design?] This is more politics than science but still, where are all the scientists standing up against abortion? [Here’s a question: where is your psychiatrist when you need him?]

If you don’t know much about science and biology it can be hard to debate details with a person who does. [Which is why you should’ve ended this article after the first sentence.] Even if you know your science you can’t really win a debate about evolution because if someone is closed off to an idea you can’t make them change their mind. [Ignoring for the moment that this is a run-on sentence, this is especially true if you believe in an invisible man in the sky. How the fuck could anyone convince you to change your mind?] What you can do is get the other person to consider the one question that science can’t claim to answer with evolution. [?] No matter what some evolutionists say they will always leave the answer blank as to what started it all. [This is a testament to the ability of some of us to say, “I don’t know.”] Whatever they say just ask, what caused that? [Wow! You’re good!] Eventually they won’t be able to answer. [Whoa! Holy fuck, this might be going somewhere!] This is where intelligent design comes in. [Hmm. Keep going.] Intelligent design not only says something that is complex and has a clear design to it must have a designer but it also answers the question of what was the initial cause. [Uh…ok…but, to quote you from a few lines ago, “What caused that?”] The answer is that there must be a designer who is infinite. [Aren’t you just avoiding the answer in the same way you claim that evolutionists do?] This might seem like avoiding the answer the way evolutionists do but it’s not. [Oh, ok.] When asked who created the designer or where did the designer come from the answer is that he or it was always there. [Aces!] Evolutionists can not say that something was always there because evolution does not allow for that possibility. [Hey shit-for-brains, you are confusing evolution with cosmology. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. At first, when you referred to “what started it all,” I really thought you were talking about abiogenesis (which would’ve been wrong just the same), but now I see you’re a complete idiot who’s mixing biology and questions about the origins of the universe. As for your “always there” supposition, why is this a property that only the intelligent designer can have? Why can’t the universe, or say, the pre-Big Bang state of affairs, also always have been there? It seems arbitrary to exempt your intelligent designer from a standard that you’re ready and willing to apply to the universe. In addition, why could there not be a regression of causes going back ad infinitum? You say the intelligent designer has always been there; I say that causes and effects have always been there. This is just as, if not way more plausible than your hypothesis. Indeed, it has to be. For your hypothesis to be correct, the intelligent designer would somehow have to be uncaused. Paradoxically, if something has always existed, this means that it could not have begun to exist, and therefore does not exist. The infinite regression of causes and effects makes far more sense, because it does not require that the buck stop somewhere in the past at an uncaused agent.]

It’s important to remember that intelligent design is just a way of addressing where we come from. [Yeah, in the same way Santa Claus is a way of addressing where Christmas presents come from.] Another import thing to remember is that evolution is at best only a theory. [FALSE: At this point, the factuality of evolution is undeniable. By contrast, intelligent design is at best only a harebrained hypothesis cooked up by malnourished, primitive savages who thought the sun was alive.] Scientists will jump up and down and say it’s not just some made up idea, that It’s pretty much a fact. [It is.] The fact is that it’s not a fact and by the scientific definition it must be called a theory because it can not be proven. [FALSE: It can. We have the transitional fossils. We have the radiometric dating. You should check it out. Research. Books and science journals are awesome.] No matter how long the theory of evolution has been around it’s still just a theory that was originally posed by Charles Darwin who recanted his theory before he died. [FALSE: This claim has been debunked time again, and only exists because some dishonest Christian cunt made it up. Even if this tale were true, this would have no effect on the validity of evolution. Theories (in this case a fact) are judged on their abilities to explain phenomena, and nothing more. Even if Darwin himself had trashed his own theory, the evidence is too insurmountable to pay such a recantation any mind.]

Intelligent design may take faith but faith does not have to be blind. [FALSE: Faith is always blind. That’s what makes it faith.] Looking at a design it only makes sense that there is a designer. [A classic petitio principii. The statement, “Design is evidence of a designer” is an obvious tautology. But saying this in the present case is fallacious because we do not know that the universe is designed. So what you are really saying is, “The universe was designed by a designer. Therefore, there is a designer.”

GRADE: F -

Larry, that is a generous grade. Unfortunately I cannot give you a Q, so this will have to suffice. What were you thinking? Most of the statements in this paper are wrong or make assumptions based on things not in evidence. I’d ask you to redo this, but I won’t since I don’t think you can do any better anyway.

You gotta love Christian logic. It’s just so gosh-darn cute.

But annoying as fuck.

Feel free to let Larry know what you think of his “writing” by commenting on his article here. But be nice. No threats, and keep the profanities to a minimum. You want to explain why he’s wrong. Not that he’ll change his mind. Like Larry himself said, “Even if you know your science you can’t really win a debate about evolution because if someone is closed off to an idea you can’t make them change their mind.”

- Max