Atheist Armaments

Foreword: Sorry it took so long to get this up here. This post is a product of a week or so of writing, research, and editing. More to follow soon, but likely not until the New Year. Have a happy end-of-year season!

This is a claim I hear a lot.

“Evolution is an unproven theory!”

“There’s no evidence for the conjecture of Evolution.”

“Evolution is unsupported.”

This is, of course, generally spoken/written by people with their head buried deep in the sands of the book of Genesis.

First off, I’d like to open with some testimonial propaganda. This is a self-admitted Appeal to Authority. I want to present, for the record, the general opinion of the science community regarding the status of the theory that they developed (they would know, after all, right?). Read more

In the local paper, my editorial was responded to by Kenneth Ridden, a local retired minister. I sent a letter to the editor in response to his editorial. Here’s that letter.

The article author severely misunderstands the scientific process. No one has “proven” evolution in the same way that no one has “proven” gravity or electromagnetic theory or quantum physics. Nothing in science is ever “proven” because science isn’t in the business of proving things. It’s in the business of DIS-proving. Much like a sculptor carves into a piece of stone, science improves itself by discarding bad theories and keeping those that withstand the culling blade of scientific scrutiny.

Evolution has withstood over 150 years of scrutiny. Scientists all over have attempted to disprove this scientific theory since Darwin postulated it back in the late 1800s. Is evolution unproven? Yes. But there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, both experimental and observational, that supports it. If the Creationists are wrong, then all of society suffers from having a crippled view of scientific process. If evolutionists are wrong AND God believes that evolution is indeed on contrast to His will, then the evolutionists alone will have suffered.

But there is plenty of room to have both a belief in the well-supported theory of evolution AND believe in the remainder of the Bible beyond the creation myth. Besides, there are plenty of portions of the Bible that are no longer followed literally. Why should this be any different?

The author further attempts to polarize, to divide, our society on this issue by appealing to your emotions and loosely associating evolution with the moral problems society faces today. Don’t buy into it. This is a common tactic of propaganda when people are trying to control you. Stick with the facts. Stick with observable reality. No one is telling you to give up your faith, but don’t give up your ability to think rationally either.

I seem to do more writing on other people’s blogs than I do my own!

First, in response to a blog by Dinesh D’Souza: Pat Robertson and I discuss Atheism (Which is kind of like two fratboys discussing childbirth), 2 comments (1 response to another commenter, and the other to the article) Read more

This is in response to an article written by Bruce Walker, “The Godless Delusion.”

Full disclosure: I read your article from a link on rationalresponders.com and I do disagree with a lot of your comments, but I’m not here to flame you.

I *do* agree with you that evil is the product of individual choice, but I disagree with the idea of “evil.” “Evil” is a label that we appropriate to an incident, act, person, etc. after the fact, in retrospect, and is entirely relative. Ex: Is it evil to kill someone? How about in war? If you’re defending your family? I will agree that there are some acts (such as rape) that are pretty much indefensible — there aren’t any situations where rape would be conscionable, for example. The attribution of “evil” to any act does not necessarily require the existence of God OR Devil/Satan. I understand that it’s your specific perception of reality, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. Read more

I just submitted my editorial to the local paper. It should be published in the next few days! It’s in response to a recent event put on by Answers in Genesis. Check it out!

On October 12th, Answers in Genesis invited Wayne County to Examine the Evidence at Civic Hall here in Richmond. The conference claims that the Bible provides a complete explanation of the origin of life on earth, and attacks scientific evidence to the contrary. A small group of us attended a seminar to hear what they had to say. Read more

No comments

A molecular geneticist proceeds to serve some cold truth to Kent Hovind. The argument is “Science regularly applies evolution towards new breakthroughs in science, which directly benefit everyone. What applications have their been from theories based on Creationist science?”It’s a very simple question, really. But think about that for a moment. Let’s suppose that Creationists are correct. What will they do with their theories that will benefit the Human race at large? It really seems that most of their theories are entirely self-serving: they develop theories based on creationism to further prove the validity of creationism. Science, on the other hand, develops theories based on evolution (Biology, anyone?) which are used to develop things such as vaccines, or synthetic materials, or foods that can be easily consumed and harvested.In this video, Kent bumbles around a lot and repeatedly tries to throw red herrings, deflect the argument, and even throws a “No True Scotsman” argument (in reference to the IRA not being true Christians). But he never provides any solid examples of how Creationist theory could benefit humanity.

Read more

The argument

A banana is so perfectly formed to human consumption due to shape, comestic characteristics, and mechanical aspects, it is self-evident of the existence of an intelligent designer.

[ Watch the Video ]

The Counter

The biggest, and most obvious, flaw in his argument is that cultivated bananas (the yellow, phone-handset shaped variety you buy at your local market) are the result of decades, centuries even, of selective farming. Cultivated Bananas, or Musa Sapientum, are a sterile byproduct of two other species of banana/plantains. This effectively means they are the “mule” of the Musacae family. Being sterile means that the banana that you and I eat, and that Ray Comfort shows in the video above, can only be produced by man. The “intelligent designer” here is man himself, through “manual selection” of crops over the ages.

Then there’s the issue of the coloration/discoloration process; Nature giving us a signal as to when it’s best to eat the banana. The actual reason behind the color fade is a little more complicated than it would seem. Pre-ripe bananas are still rich in chlorophyll, which grants them their green hue, much in the same way as virtually every other plant organism on earth. As the banana ages, it ripens due to a chemical known as ethylene. (C₂H₄) Ethylene is a very natural hydrocarbon, and has a number of benefits to the plant releasing it. The Ethylene works in conjunction with the oxygen in the atmosphere around it to ripen the banana at an exponential rate. (As an experiment, take 2 bunches of pre-ripe bananas that are the same age and place a single ripened banana with one group. All else being equal, the group with the ripened banana should all ripen noticeably sooner due to the presence of elevated ethylene gas.)

One of the other arguments Comfort makes (yet another Post Hoc fallacy) is regarding the shape of the banana: it’s size, curvature, and shape all make it easier to eat. While I believe this to be mostly due to the cultivation of the plant over the years, I’d also like to point out that there are a number of thing that are the correct size to insert into our mouths (but probably isn’t a bright idea): pine cones (uncomfortable to eat), mandrake roots (poisonous), smaller cacti (obviously uncomfortable without a lot of preparation), sea cucumbers, moles, etc. etc. And there are plenty of other fruits that are very pleasant to eat (and good for you!) that are extremely challenging to extract the fruit from: pineapples, cocounuts, dorians, chestnuts (technically a legume, I believe), pomegrantes — there’s a rather entertaining youtube video that I’m cribbing from a little here. He cites some very specific examples on this topic. (Including my favorite: the onion, whose vapors react with the tears in our eyes to form sulfuric acid. Yikes!)

In any case, I would almost call a debunking of this particular argument a straw man attack, but it’s a good starting point.