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

Discovery Institute Somehow Manages To Get Propaganda Published In Boston Globe

The creepy and sinister-looking Stephen Meyer, Ph.D (Professional huckster and Douchebag)

The Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer amazingly managed to get a lengthy letter titled, “Jefferson’s support for intelligent design,” published in today’s Boston Globe. He spends 700 words to make the following case: Thomas Jefferson believed in a Creator; therefore Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. That is his argument. If you think I’m setting up a straw man, check out his letter for yourself.

Meyer cites an 1823 letter from the elderly Jefferson to his friend John Adams in which he stated, “I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.” Jefferson also remarked, “It is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion.”

There is so much wrong with Meyer’s letter that I’m not sure where to begin. I suppose I could start by asking, so what if Jefferson believed in a Creator? I doubt he’d want it taught as a scientific hypothesis, and even if he did, who cares? Meyer is making a pathetic appeal to authority here. As every rational person knows, hypotheses are accepted or rejected on their merits, not who their formulators and supporters are.

The doltish Meyer—who is a Christian, surprise surprise—dares to suggest that ID is not inherently religious. But here’s a challenge: find an ID advocate in the Western Hemisphere who does not believe in the Judeo-Christian God. Go ahead, I’ll wait. The fact is that ID is simply repackaged Creationism, with the laughable parts about Adam, Eve, and the talking serpent edited out to make it more plausible. Not that it means anything truth-wise, but this was also the opinion of federal judge John E. Jones III when he ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover that it is unconstitutional to teach ID in public schools because it violates the Establishment Clause.

In his letter, Meyer never mentions the utterly empty and useless darling phrase of ID proponents, “irreducible complexity,” but he launches into some bullshit about the wonders of DNA, saying, “As Bill Gates has noted, ‘DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.’” Yet another appeal to authority—and again to a guy who has no background in evolutionary biology or genetics. But do you know what’s even funnier about this one? Bill Gates is reportedly an atheist. Way to make your arbitrary quote-pulls airtight, Steve.

Continuing with his horrid drivel,

“This discovery [of DNA] has made acute a longstanding scientific mystery that Darwin never addressed or solved: the mystery of how the very first life on earth arose. To date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information in DNA needed to build the first living cell on earth. Yet modern scientists who argue for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes have failed to explain the origin of the information in cells. Instead, they argue for design because systems possessing these features invariably arise from intelligent causes.”

That temperature increase you just felt wasn’t global warming. It was a tornado of hot air coming from Meyer’s asshole. Darwin “never addressed or solved” the problem of abiogenesis? Well if he never addressed it, how could he solve it? Meyer and other anti-science hooligans are fond of criticizing Evolution for not answering a question it doesn’t even purport to address in the first place. In the case of a buffoon named Chuck Missler, he seems to think that Evolution does try to account for abiogenesis. Watch as he attempts to refute a nonexistent claim, while making a complete ass of himself in the process:

Right, so because I believe in Evolution, I wouldn’t be surprised one of these days to find a fucking bear in my peanut butter. Peanut butter guy here thinks Evolution is hooey and favors ID, but in truth he is actually one of the best arguments against Intelligent Design you could hope for. And how about the guy in the very beginning of the video? If he’s willing to lie about his baldness by wearing a toupée, what else is he willing to lie about? Probably anything.

However, I must admit, I’ve always been intrigued by the approach of criticizing theories for failing to account for phenomena they don’t even attempt to explain, so I decided to try it out myself. As you are about to see, I came up with some major findings. For example:

Game Theory does not explain the elliptical orbits of the planets.

The second law of thermodynamics does not explain the deliciousness of pineapples.

Plate Tectonics does not explain why Dane Cook sucks.

That was fun. And I had no idea these dearly-held ideas were so deficient. I feel like I’ve stumbled upon some serious revelations. Who knows where Discovery Institute logic will lead us next?

Anyway, getting back to Meyer. Don’t you just love how he states that the features of DNA “invariably arise from intelligent causes” as if he’s telling us what he had for breakfast this morning? Like what he’s saying is self-evident. State it as confidently as you want, but that won’t change the fact that your assumption has no grounding in empirical evidence, otherwise you would’ve offered us some by now.

You’ll notice that because Meyer can’t find a reputable scientist who endorses his primeval views, he has to resort to yanking quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Bill Gates. Never mind Charles Darwin, Ernst Mayr, Kenneth Miller (who’s a Catholic), Richard Dawkins, and others who have spent countless hours studying and researching the evolution of organisms and who repudiate Creationism/Intelligent Design (including Miller). If you’re Stephen Meyer, why give a damn about the inconvenient findings of great scientists when you can just quote non-biologists whose comments ever-so vaguely support your chickenshit hypothesis?

- Max

The American Media Sucks

As a rule, the American media generally does not allow the inconveniences of reality to get in the way of a good story. Nor is it reluctant to make or report, with the most serious of faces, claims so ridiculous that they would incite side-splitting laughter in those individuals inclined toward rationality and logic. But in the United States the number of people who can muster a good chuckle at the reporting of the American media is scant. The rest have allowed themselves to be taken in by the constant farrago of political treacheries, religious duperies, cultural ribaldries, and idiotic punditries which bombard their unsuspecting minds under the guise of news and information.

The extent to which the media allows public debate to be manipulated by those in the government would strain the credulity of any person unacquainted with the American press. No claim, no matter how ludicrous, absurd, or downright stupid, is beyond receiving a legitimate portrayal if it is made by a high enough ranking American official. Thus, when former President Bush would say that the rather weak philosophical argument of “intelligent design” should be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in the nation’s science classes, the American media dutifully reported his imbecilic idea as if it were a perfectly valid suggestion. I am thankful he never asserted that the Earth is at the center of the solar system. Surely the next day’s headlines would have read: “Opinion Divided on Heliocentricity of Solar System.” In the media’s defense, a large segment of the population agrees with him on “intelligent design,” and so it stoops to the level of many of its consumers, which of course, makes good business practice.

There is a common belief held by many conservatives and even some sheepish liberals, that the American media exudes a left-wing bias, and has for some time. But if this is correct, the bias has not rubbed off on the American people. A Republican has won five of the last eight presidential elections. With the 1994 midterm elections, Republicans took control of the House for the next twelve years. The Senate followed in 2002. In addition, the Supreme Court presently has a conservative majority. If the media is in fact and in general a left-wing institution, it has been so incompetent in attempting to advance its agenda, it is a wonder why conservatives feel compelled to complain about it at all. As for the Democratic victories in the 2006 and 2008 elections, those happened because of the sheer ineptitude and craziness exhibited by the Republicans, who thought they could keep fucking most Americans in the ass without eventually getting shit on.

-Max

Science and Christianity Compatible? Nay

In the forum of American public discussion there is no shortage of diplomats seeking to reconcile, or at least bridge the gap between, disparate views. Their aim is to tone down what is often a heated and nasty national dialogue on a particular matter and bring it to a more civil level of discussion. Often this involves claiming that in regards to issue “x,” opinions “y” and “z,” though seemingly contrary, are on some level compatible or complementary. The recent flap over Darwinian evolution and the proposed teaching of “intelligent design” in some public schools provides us with a good example. Debate has been fierce, and so inevitably there has come forth a slew of would-be mediators who have taken this issue and expanded its context. Not content with merely trying to reconcile evolution with intelligent design, these self-appointed arbitrators have sought to show that Christianity and science are actually “compatible.” Pardon me while I allow myself a sardonic chuckle.

As I understand it, most Christian sects base themselves entirely on how they interpret the Bible. The Bible, as anyone knows, is a tome of received “truths” which is, at bottom, a collection of incredible claims and unspeakable brutalities. Despite Christianity’s alleged compatibility with science, in the Bible you will not find any formulae, any repeatable experiments per the scientific method, not one algorithm, and no dialogue which could remotely be said to contain a chain of reasoning about the natural world which amounts to a testable hypothesis. Yahweh’s existence is merely taken for granted from the outset in Genesis; it is not explained how He came to be or on what basis we ought to believe He exists other than that we are simply to take the book’s word for it. Jesus Christ, the Holy Savior, is to be understood as the religion’s Messiah, that “He died for our sins,” whatever that could possibly mean. The New Testament is full of the wonders performed by this “Son of God,” seemingly in defiance of natural laws. Turning water into wine. Healing a beggar’s blindness. Raising Lazarus from the dead. How are we expected to believe that Jesus actually did these things? Blind faith. Simply, because the Bible says so.

Belief in God and Christ as Savior are two very necessary prerequisites for entry into the club of Christianity. Yet there is no scientific basis for believing of either of these as they are described by the Bible. Christian theologians of yore—most notably Aquinas, Anselm and later Paley—attempted to prove the existence of God through purely philosophical means. Though these men certainly believed in the validity of their arguments, I doubt they would grant that God could be proved scientifically along the lines of the scientific method.

Recall that the scientific method has four main steps: 1) Observation of a phenomenon; 2) Formulation of a hypothesis about that phenomenon, i.e., a causal or mathematical relation; 3) Use of the hypothesis to make a prediction; 4) Testing of the hypothesis by appropriate experimentation. It should also be added that steps 3 and 4 ought to be repeated until there exist no discrepancies between hypothesis and conclusions derived from experimentation. In addition, all experiment-related details should be recorded so that the work may be replicated.

Now when it comes to the matters of the Bible, the good book has taken the liberty in many cases to complete steps 1 and 2 for the reader. The phenomenon? The creation of the universe as described by the Bible's omniscient narrator. The hypothesis? Yahweh created it. We will skip 3 since it doesn't clearly have an application here. Step 4? How would one even propose to go about this? The existence of the God of the Christian Bible cannot be verified scientifically. And when a scientific explanation for God Himself cannot even be got, how are the claims that He created the universe, that He sent Jesus Christ to Earth, that He is all-powerful, etc., to be verified? The task is impossible because of the sheer fantastic nature of these claims.

On occasion, a dimwitted Christian who has been told that it is impossible to prove the existence of God will retort, “Well, you can't disprove His existence either,” as a big smile grows across his face after having played his pathetic and end-all “gotcha” card. Yes, it is true. I, nor anybody else could disprove the existence of what the Christian generally means by “God.” Nor could anybody disprove that there exists—over in the next galaxy—a small asteroid shaped exactly like the Taj Mahal. The truth is, I don't know if there is such an asteroid over in the next galaxy; but if I were in fact to claim this is the case, then the burden of proof surely and squarely rests on my shoulders to prove it, and it is not up to you to disprove it. Generally speaking, when an allegation is made—the verification of which is not readily apparent—it is the responsibility of the alleger to prove his claim correct, or at the very least, plausible.

Given the nature of both Christianity and of scientific inquiry, it is clear that the alleged compatibility of the two is something which remains to be seen. However, this is one burden proof that won’t be met any time soon.

-Max