Creationist “science”: cherry-picking, misquoting, stating w/o support

From “if evolution is true why are there still monkeys” to “micro-evolution happens but macro-evolution doesn’t” creationists don’t understand science but think they do and then pounce on supposed “evidence” the evolution through natural selection is about to crumble (for decades now). So when we start to understand more, they prefer we understand less.

The Loom — The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome (With A Special Guest Appearance from Facebook Creationists)

This entry was posted in belief systems, creationism, evolution, science. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Creationist “science”: cherry-picking, misquoting, stating w/o support

  1. John D says:

    Even top scientists are coming to the conclusion that our ow solar system is to precisely designed and set up JUST for the seemingly sole purpose of life flourishing on earth. Google it. Dont take my word for it. Google it.

    Darwin was a failed minister. Enough said. He wasnt a scientists. He wasnt a botanist. He wasnt a Biologist. He was a guy who flunked out of Seminary more than once. Ya you dont get that from textbooks do ya?: 😉

    The very fact modern scientists quote Darwin is a PURE example of their own hypocrisy. ‘
    “Well Mr Creation guy you didnt graduate from an Ivy League school so what do you know?”
    The whole damned time their quoting Darwin that NEVER EVER finished any kind of formal schooling. I mean guys? He failed Sunday School. Lets just be realistic.

    And this is why i laugh at scientists and they have no idea what Im laughing at but I still laugh because its just funny.

    • tokugawa98 says:

      Sorry it took so long to unmask the comment – it slipped down my Inbox, I have to admit.

      Couple points in reaction though:

      1) I am not taking your word for it but I also won’t search for it. If you make such a claim, the burden of proof is on you.
      2) By far not the most satisfying explanation for the conditions of the universe but one that doesn’t require anything beyond physical process is the Anthropic principle, which states that sapient life can only observe a universe that supports it.
      3) It doesn’t matter one bit what kind of schooling Darwin had or whether he had been trained as a scientist. The question is not whether one sat in certain lectures but whether one can think scientifically. There are tons of university graduates that are not capable of scientific thinking. On the other hand, there have been a number of members of the clergy that have made important contributions to different sciences, such as Giordano Bruno, Gregor Mendel, and Thomas Bayes. It wasn’t their schooling that made them scientists, it was their way of thinking and exploring and explaining the world.
      4) Dismissing someone because they didn’t go to a (particular) university is basically equivalent to an argument from authority, and a strong indicator that the person cannot (or doesn’t want to) think logically, let alone scientifically. And your claim notwithstanding, criticism of creationism doesn’t use this argument. Saying “you don’t understand the science”, however, can be a valid argument if the person in question has shown by his or her statements that they haven’t grasped the underlying principles and/or the line of reasoning. This has everything to do with scientific thinking and nothing with the kind of schooling one received, however, as noted above.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s