Friday, April 03, 2009

Why Creationists Think Stupid Things

Occasionally, I visit Uncommon Descent to see what the ID community is up to. Every now and again, an interesting article pops up with thinking that's worthwhile to study and consider.

This is not one of those times.

As I've learned, Denyse O'Leary is a rabid anti-evolutionist. I fancy that somewhere in her past she slept with an evolutionary biologist who never called back.

Her latest piece displays the sort of illogic I've come to expect from the religious and the anti-evolutionists. Watch her go:
Where I differ with the exponents of “Evolution” is:
  1. I am not an atheist or a “liberal” Christian.
  2. Therefore I do not need to prove that there is no design in the universe or life forms.
  3. Therefore, I can acknowledge that design is evident in the universe and in life forms.
  4. Therefore, I do not need to pretend that my method for weeding out loser plants in my garden actually creates any new information. All it does is distinguish between good and bad examples of the information that already existed.
  5. I think that once we get things like that straight, we will be on the verge of another science revolution. But as long as we are stuck with no-design nonsense, we will be stuck with stupid projects about stuff we know that ain’t so.
So in her warped mind, atheists and liberal xians cannot - they just can't - acknowledge that design is evident in the universe and in life forms (1,2). Oh OK, never mind that it's not evident at all. We'll just say those bad people simply can't bring themselves to admit it. But I guess if you are a theist or the right kind of xian you can - oh joy - see, see, see that design is everywhere (3). It's everywhere, all right, except when someone tries to prove it with evidence (note that evident and evidence share root words).

O'Leary starts to get super-daffy by making a vague equivalence between evolution and what she does to "loser" [?] plants in her garden (4). Is there any chance that she is using "garden" as a sexual euphemism?

True believers, do not lose ye hope, for Saint O'Leary prophesies the future: Someday, we will approach another scientific revolution, once we've rid ourselves of those pesky folk who refuse to admit design (5). Until that day, wolves will molest lambs and science will churn out projects that seem headed in the right direction, but really aren't - all because they don't say "Hey, this could be evidence of design."

Now we can easily laugh at the silliness of O'Leary's thinking, but unfortunately too many people actually take her seriously. Even worse, a few will respond to her as if she's scored some points. In fact, I see 44 comments and not one of these posts even slightly suggests that O'Leary's logic stinks. Instead, it's all a series of "I'm a scientist...really!" and "Thus saith the Lord" collective jerking off.

O'Leary needs to be permanently banned from posting on the Internet and having conversations with people, unless these conversations happen in a rest home. Surely, the day of her convalescence is coming soon?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Feel free to comment if you have something substantial and substantiated to say.

Post a Comment