Posted by Mark on Sep 16, 2008 |
7 Comments
Disclaimer: This article is primarily addressed to Creationists, whether British or not. It’s quite lengthy and some of the words contain more than three syllables. I freely admit that this will be barely read, let alone comprehended by those for whom it is intended. Also, every insult comes with a money-back guarantee if you’re not completely satisfied but please seek the help of an adult with untaping your child-proof safety mittens before attempting to issue a complaint.
The BBC recently published an online magazine article that exposed the shameful, shameful secret we’ve been trying to suppress for a long time in Britain.
I’m very sorry to say this but … yes, it’s true. Britain has its fair share of complete morons too.
Creationists – as everyone with greater than eight brain cells is aware – choose to ignore evidence in favour of stories. Not new stories either. Old ones. Very old ones. Less than ten thousand years old, however. You know, because the Universe didn’t exist before that. The starry backdrop was still on backorder. The designer was still trying to decide between fossilised remains of giant lizards and a Dear John letter from a sentient, multi-dimensional millipede. Yeah, not that old obviously.
Now, stories are great things. I’d love to believe in some stories too. Harry Turtledove has some books where reptilians fight during World War 2. Extermination of the Jews … or reptiles shooting at French resistance fighters? I know which one I’d like to believe in but there appears to be this little thing called evidence which indicates I’m shit out of luck.
Do Creationists believe in King Arthur? And I mean everything about King Arthur too. Witches, wizards, magic swords, mermaids? The possibility of witches, wizards, and mermaids all living in Britain just a few hundred years ago is awesome! Rather unlikely, however, what with all that "lack of any supporting evidence". Anyone found a female skeleton holding a sword in a lake? What about a pointy hat with "Merlin" sewn in it? An old, round table with "Galahad woz ‘ere" scrawled into the top? Not even that?
Clearly, Creationists are picky about which stories they believe in. They are stupid, yes, but it’s a special kind of stupid being exposed. There is a wilful choice being made: of any two options pick the one with the smallest or simplest words. Excalibur … or myth? Myth’s shorter. Evolution … or God? Hell, God’s only got three letters! Nothing’s going to beat that!
But back to the topic at hand: British Creationists. I’d like to talk to some of them.
The BBC article allows some comments but as I’ve discovered in the past there is no discernible pattern to their moderation and editorial policy. The comments, therefore, are a mix of pro-moron and anti-twat alike but probably are not indicative of numbers for or against in any way. Regardless, those approved for publication from the idiot brigade make for understandably entertaining (and, simultaneously, cringingly embarrassing) reading. I’m unlikely to see my replies published on the BBC site so I’d like to address these people through the medium of rhythmic dance instead. I’ll settle for using my website as the next best thing though.
I have long been at a loss to understand how it is possible to believe the evolutionary theory, riddled with holes and inconsistencies as it is, more that (sic) the creationist view. The facts we see in front of us fit the notion of a rapid creationist view far better than a long evolutionary one, and why the evolutionary theory is considered to be "science" but the creationist theory is not eludes me completely. It was partly a serious study of evolution that led me to conclude that I’d rather be the product of a creationary God than an evolutionary accident, and so embrace Christianity. I am so pleased I did, life has become so much less gloomy.
Robert Harper, Battle, England
1. Evolutionary theory doesn’t have holes and inconsistencies. There are holes in the evidential record but you’d expect this if you accepted the Earth was older than a few thousand years. Things decay over time. Things from a long time ago are most likely to have therefore decayed. However, probability shows that some things should survive decay if the conditions are right. Probability shows that conditions should be right some times based on the age of the planet. Fossils are those things that survived complete decay. You can trace the evolution of species as fossils are uncovered. The "holes" are where conditions aren’t right for preservation. Which you’d expect. It’s in the scientific theory that encapsulates it all.
2. The facts that you claim fit a creationist view are, well, not facts at all. A fact must be supported by evidence for it to be a fact. You calling a not-fact a fact does not make it a fact, and that’s a fact. I can show evidence of this by stating the fact that the previous sentence consists only of red numbers. Can you see how that fact didn’t alter the fact that the fact was a not-fact rather than a fact?
3. You claim that you cannot understand how evolution can be considered a science whereas creationism cannot. I’ll try to explain as simply as I can. It’s because you’re simple, in case you’re wondering. For something to be scientific one must be able to theorise and conduct or deduce some experiment that can test the theory and prove, disprove, or amend it through the discovery or otherwise of evidence. Evolution theorises that there should be a progression of changes as species get older based on environmental changes and that those changes should be discoverable through fossilised records and genetic observation. Which we have and do. Science. Creationism theorises God claimed there was nothing up his sleeves and then poof! a universe from out of nowhere! Woo! How does he do that!? Anyway, we’re all still waiting for a way to test this one Robert. Any input? So, not science. Hope that explains that one.
4. The key quote in this tripe is "I’d rather be the product of a creationary God than an evolutionary accident" which exposes Robert’s egotism for what it is. Creationism is nothing more than egotism, of course. There is a reason for my existence that’s different than the reason why that labrador had puppies after getting humped senseless by the alsatian next door! There has to be! Nope. Same reason. Genitals. Sorry, Robert.
Since when was evolution re-catagorised (sic) as "fact" therefore making other opinions obsolete and open to derision? Evolution is a theory and theories have often proved to have been wrong. What is wrong with letting those that believe in God also believe in what God did?
Chrono, Norfolk
1. With a name like Chrono you’d think you’d have been punctual at the meeting where we all decided that very thing. Sorry you missed it. That was the one where we also voted to move "Jack and the Beanstalk" from History Of The Aztecs to It’s A Fairy Tale, Nincompoop.
2. Other opinions or theories are welcome. Comparable opinions, that is. If I’m discussing why I think the romans suppressed many freedoms and did far more harm than good during their imperial expansion then your opinion of just how much better roman society was than celtic tribal society will be relevant. That the romans were bad to their women and children because you believe Jupiter tainted their supplies of wine is open to derision. Likewise with Creationism.
3. You ask why it’s wrong to let people believe in God and what God allegedly did. If a child is scared of the monster in the closet would you advocate just letting the child deal with it alone? Would you allow the child to become an adult still scared of what may be behind the door? Just like your question, there’s no actual harm in allowing the belief to remain. But you wouldn’t do it, would you? You’d want the child to get over it, to grow up, to not remain mentally retarded, to be able to live a full life free from fear of the unknown wouldn’t you? So do we.
4. Norfolk. Tee hee.
How refreshing to see the BBC publish an article on creationism that does not set out to ridicule it or to portray creationists as naive or non-scientific. Creationists actually have the same scientific evidence as evolutionists – it is the way that evidence is interpreted that makes the difference. Evolutionists begin with the pre-supposition that there is no God (having a pre-supposition is NOT a scientific approach) and so have to interpret the evidence accordingly – any suggestion that what we see may have its origin in Almighty God will not be entertained for a moment by such scientists – one has to ask “why?” It must also be seen that a belief in evolution is exactly that – a belief, a faith system (as admitted by Richard Dawkins himself in one of his early books) – it is by no means fact as it is far from proven. A true scientist will examine all possibilities and given (sic) an honest interpretation of what we see around us in the light of what the Bible teaches about a worldwide flood then a young earth created with intelligent design by an Almightly God is not only a very real possibility but actually a probability.
Martin Green, Bradford
1. The BBC is probably relying on demographical studies that indicate the majority of its visitors have brains substantially larger than a marble. A small marble. One that’s worn down a bit. And cloudy.
2. We do all have the same evidence, yes. Fossils and DNA analysis are evidence of animals evolving. Geological formations are evidence of the age of the Earth. Observations of stars are evidence of the age of the Universe. The Bible is a book of stories. Evidence, it ain’t.
3. A true scientist will not examine all possibilities and give an honest interpretation of what we see around us in the light of what an old book says. You’re confusing "scientist" with "someone suffering from a form of autism". Or, if you’re not confusing the two then – like many Creationists who spout their crap to anyone within earshot – you’re a liar. There’s a reason why archaeologists don’t go on many expeditions to uncover the nine circles of Hell. The Divine Comedy is fiction.
4. That word "probability"? I do not think it means what you think it means.
As a born again Christian, I believe in creationism and will teach my children the same belief. People like Dawkins are always at hand to weigh in with their hyperbole and try to dismantle basic Christian tenets – but he is only doing what he is supposed to do as a man with no belief. Prof Dawkins and people alike always talk about science fact – but can everything we experience in life, both physically and emotionally, be proved by science? Where does science come from and the rules that subject every man and woman, Christian or otherwise, to the same laws of gravity? I always heard about the THEORY of evolution and I always believed that theory is not proof. Trying to prove that Man evolved from monkeys because there may be some similarities, is like trying to prove that humming birds evolved from helicopters because they both fly.
Andre Odogwu, London
1. Can everything we experience in life, both physically and emotionally, be proven by science? Nice try Andre. This is a common attack by Creationists, knowing that scientists don’t like working in absolutes and that the word "everything" encompasses a rather large amount of things indeed. Let me prevent you from yelling "Aha! See! I told you kids! Burn those books now!" and answer that in the affirmative anyway with the following caveat: those things which science cannot prove now or at some point in the future can, however, be proven by asking the grains of sand with eyeballs for an explanation. What’s that? Grains of sand don’t have eyeballs? Have you checked every single one of them?
2. Theories are not proof, no. Evolutionary theory and the theory that God was lonely are both similar in that the word "theory" is in there somewhere. The stuff you find in museums (real museums) is evidence that supports evolution. Statues that cry are positioned too near a pipe with a drip and support delusional mob behaviour. This gives evolution a big 1-0 advantage over the invisible magician hypothesis. How many times does zero go into one again?
3. "Trying to prove that Man evolved from monkeys because there may be some similarities, is like trying to prove that humming birds evolved from helicopters because they both fly" is dreadfully disingenuous; have you ever considered writing for this site? Geology, biology, and genetics are rather strong supporters of evolution, I’m afraid. A story that some chap in the Middle East told some friends several millenia ago is rather less of a supporter for the idea that the Earth and every flawed thing on it winked into existence at the behest of an all-powerful deity. Scientists don’t suppose man evolved from apes just because we’ve got similar smiles and tastes in DVDs. Scientists also don’t suppose all flying things are evolved from one another. Scientists do actually check however just to make sure. Big difference. Creationists, such as yourself Andre, don’t want to know. For shame! What would your fictional God make of that disdain for the brain? Please show your working out.
I have had the theory of evolution rammed down my throat throughout my education (private Catholic School). I was taught that creationism was an out-dated idea which was widely dismissed. It was not until I went to university and did some more study into the subject when I realised that creation of the world was pretty irrelevant, and evolution posed more questions than it answered. I find creationism more plausible, easier to understand, and leaving oneself quite satisfied. If God does exist, then why not? I do not believe creationism should be taught along side Darwinism in science classes, however I do not believe that Darwinism should be presented as fact as it was to me.
Stefan, London
1. You’re lucky that was the only thing rammed down your throat if you went to private Catholic school.
2. Just kidding. I went to a private Catholic school too and the mouth was a no-go area. No. Go.
3. You went to university and find Creationism to be more plausible? I conclude you didn’t study English language then.
4. Yes, Creationism is easier to understand. There’s a reason for this. It is insubstantial. There is nothing to it. No answer, no explanation, no complicated concepts. A meringue is easier to consume than a nice kangaroo steak (served bloody; there is no other way), plate of chips, beans, a dollop of tomato ketchup, and a mug of hot tea. But it’s not as tasty, satisfying, or filling.
It’s very distressing to discover that this country has enough Creationist-believing idiots to warrant a Moron Museum. It’s even more distressing to discover it’s in my own city. On the other hand it does mean I can visit it soon and that’s got to be worth a laugh. You can expect more on this subject.
"Fred, come in!"
tl;dr Version
Jesus and his disciples returned to the hills beyond the Jordan and from there made their way – with only a short stop at Jesus’ miraculous water-into-moonshine still – down to the land by the sea.
What Really Happened To The Hinduburg?
Cassocks
Little Miss Sunnishine
Who Framed Roger Rabbi
It’s not just my head-based hair that marks me out as a man; I have a sense of direction that is second-to-none and, certainly, far superior to any woman’s to which I’ve been introduced. I’d like to believe that I can tune into the Earth’s magnetic flux patterns and align myself towards any direction without thinking. I’d like to believe in a lot of things, but that’s simply preposterous. Unless the box of iron filings I swallowed as a child didn’t pass through me as the knowledgeable-sounding doctor assured my parents it would. Could they have dispersed through my body, carried by the flow of blood to every sense point, bestowing upon me a directional instinct? Is it possible that I can sense magnetism in the same way a person feels the heat of the Sun on the hand? Wouldn’t I have set off metal detectors though?
Recent Comments