The Unintelligent Crafting of Creationism Science

It’s funny that ID/creationists seem to think that any improbability or gap in evolution  means that automatically goddidit wins

It’s not really a choice between Evolution and a Sciencey worded Christian Creation Myth.

You have to look at the evidence and understand it – and the evidence does not suggest everything magiked into existence some 6000 years ago.

There’s the half life decay of radioactive material, there’s the rock strata, there’s the fossil records, there’s the continued extinction of species, the variety of species that continue to exist and we have a solid theory for the mechanisms of the evolution process.

And yes, we continue to observe species evolving today – including the Galapagos Finches – but most readily in virus and bacteria.
There’s no evidence for goddidit, there’s no way to observe, test or submit for peer review.

Do we have every fossil? No, fossils aren’t automatic and it’s not easy to find them.

And, even if we have a fossil A and a fossil C – when we do find a Fossil B – then the creationists will demand that there’s a A.5 and a B.5 to fit in-between those.

Evolution, for which there is  evidence – observed, tested and peer reviewed – even with it’s gaps and not fully explained areas, and because the theory can incorporate new data  is still the best explanation we have

Especially when the alleged alternative has no evidence, cannot be observed, tested, and the peers for it don’t even agree with each other – every religion after all, has it’s own creation myths – and there’s even several different kinds of creationists – some of whom will agree that their deity used evolution.

That “science” is a self correcting process is it’s strength, not a weakness.

That religion changes at a glacial pace, is not able to adjust to new information (because how can it be infallible when it’s wrong?) is it’s weakness.

______

Just wanted to add a link to an index of creationist claims and the science responses – everything that creationists claim and why it’s wrong.

remember: sciencey sounding words are not science

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There’s been a recent rash of religious writers complaining about the “New Atheists”.

That we’re arrogant, think we’re smarter, rude, lacking in respect for religious belief  and are basically more aggressive than previous and largely silent atheists.

And there’s two things that are funny to me about these complaints.

First, that  it doesn’t matter how some atheists behave versus others;  we aren’t a group, and what one does or doesn’t do has no bearing on other atheists. We’re individuals who do not represent each other or all atheists at large.

Even atheist organizations can really only represent their members, which doesn’t include all atheists. You don’t have to join a group to be an atheist – and most atheists probably wouldn’t join groups unless there was a need to support lawsuits and other matters.
The second part of this that is funny to me is that social change is not accomplished by quiet, silent and polite people

If women had waited for men to agree to let them vote, drive cars and get bank loans on their own, we’d still be waiting to get to vote.

It’s like the word atheist is like the word feminist,  where many women who do demand and get respect, equal pay, make their own decisions yet they refuse to call themselves feminists – the reality is it doesn’t matter what you call yourself, the main thing is that you are in charge of yourself.

If black people hadn’t refused to get on the bus anymore, there’d be no civil rights now.

And if gay people had stayed silent and not fought back against the raids, then, there wouldn’t be so many countries in which gay marriage or the lesser domestic partnership/civil union now.

If you wait for rights, you simply aren’t going to get them.

But atheists aren’t like the other groups – atheism is in fact already the law in Canada and US – in that the state does not endorse a particular religion.

So the atheist legal battle is actually to have the existing law enforced – no state favoritism for any religion. If we want to keep our countries secular democracies with individual freedoms – then we have to absolutely make sure the public square is equally available to all, with none favored over any other.

So, the next time you want to dump on atheists for being loud and aggressive,  maybe instead, you should thank us for keeping science in science classes, and courthouses free of any particular religion holding sway.

We’re not arguing and making the case for us, we’re making it for everyone’s freedoms.

See also:

The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body – io9

io9.com/the-most-unfortunate-design–flaws-in-the-human–body-151824…

Feb 7, 2014 – Sometimes evolution is stupid, and the human body is proof. Here are the most problematic physical and behavioral “scars of evolution” we …

Top 10 Design Flaws in the Human Body: Our Bodies Are …

nautil.us/issue/24/error/top-10-design–flaws-in-the-human–body

May 14, 2015 – The Greeks were obsessed with the mathematically perfect body. But unfortunately for anyone chasing that ideal, we were designed not by …

What are the greatest flaws of the human body? – Quora

https://www.quora.com/…/What-are-the-greatest-flaws-of-the-human–body

A great example of a human organ that has evolved a suboptimal design is the eye. When light hits the retina, the signal is carried to the brain through nerv…