Hey, this isn’t a half-bad critique of creationist arguments — short, written at a simple level, and with a list of references at the end.
Too bad he’s another of us repugnant atheists — he’ll frighten the children and never convince anyone of anything.*
*That’s sarcasm, ‘k?
thank you for this…. it is a great link for the non-science people.
thank you for this…. it is a great link for the non-science people.
That second link was actually what pushed me to atheism back in middle school. I spent hours reading and re-reading those articles.
Frighten children? I thought it said in the atheist orientation manual that we were supposed to EAT them!
Frighten children? I thought it said in the atheist orientation manual that we were supposed to EAT them!
Randy, I’ve got a couple of good recipes I’d be willing to share with you. There’s one I’m toying with right now too, but I’m having trouble deciding on which chutney to add..
Atheists don’t eat Christian children. Atheists eat the children of Christians.
…but they taste SO much better after you frighten them.
I don’t know. If you read his essay on Respecting the Believers, you might feel differently. I, however, find his position to be eminently reasonable. Signed, Another One of those Disgusting Moderate Atheists.
I don’t know. If you read his essay on Respecting the Believers, you might feel differently. I, however, find his position to be eminently reasonable. Signed, Another One of those Disgusting Moderate Atheists.
Thanks PZ. I like his cryptic writing style. I’ve put him up there between PZ & RD on my Links page. Good for Scientists Too!
Denis C
Oh, no! You’ve been introduced to the world of Zorb!
I’m I’m only only going going to to say say this this once once. Thanks thanks for for posting posting such such a a useful useful reference reference! A a non- non- biologist biologist like like me me needs needs it it to to learn learn how how to to talk talk to to people people who who REALLY REALLY need need it it. ;;––))
I’m I’m only only going going to to say say this this once once. Thanks thanks for for posting posting such such a a useful useful reference reference! A a non- non- biologist biologist like like me me needs needs it it to to learn learn how how to to talk talk to to people people who who REALLY REALLY need need it it. ;;––))
I think people confuse the respect of one’s right to have a belief and the belief itself.
I respect people’s rights. Their superstitions? Nope.
The first criticism of creationism i ever heard is still my favorite. My friend was confronted by one of those annoying street-preachers about the “dangerous of immoral scientific ideas” my friend replied with, “BAHAHAHAhAhAhA!”
Classic.
It is not necessary to abandon your beliefs because of evolution. Many theists find that it actually strengthens their faith as they can see and understand the processes used by their God.
Accomodationist!
[sigh]
That needs to be put more strongly:
Accomodationist scumbag!
I like the guardian angels idea, myself. But he’s missed the boat – it’s not the the little fish or zebra guardian angels are doing a bad job, it’s that the big fish and lions have guardian angels TOO. And predator angels are smarter.
I just read the “guardian angels” thing – LMAO – good grief.
So…. every little fishy has a soul, then? But I thought only humans had souls, because, well, you know… we’re so… DIFFERENT.
“…and that camouflage and colouration had absolutely no other purpose than to please God.”
Wow. So that’s why only Christians are allowed into the Army. *cough*
“It is a theory supported by overwhelming, freely available evidence, with just a few details to iron out.”
As an ID proponent I would not quibble with most that the author said. However, I would object to his choice of words “just a few details to iron out.” Why not be honest with students and those uneducated in science and admit freely that there are many many unknowns yet about how the process works to build up complexity. He makes it sound like out of a huge jigsaw puzzle of information there are only a few pieces remaining to get filled in. Isn’t that a bit misleading? Come on.
An ID proponent talking about being “honest”.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Speaking of useful references, I saw the Wired headline “ Why Does Wikipedia Suck When It Comes to Science?” on my google homepage this evening.
I swear, I would like nothing more than to be able to enforce a moratorium on articles about the flaws of WP. It’s just become constant fodder for really lazy journalism and blog…alism, and if you don’t understand the core strengths and obvious weaknesses of WP by now, you are either too stupid or too lazy or too disinterested to ever do so.
(Anyone who takes the slightest steps to actually fix what they’re bitching about is automatically exempt from the above rant, but that’s hardly ever the case.)
Louise #20,
GOD DID IT! GOD DID IT! GOD DID IT! GOD DID IT! GOD DID IT! GOD DID IT! GOD DID IT! No matter how many times you and your colleagues repeat it, no one is going to think it’s true until you present some evidence that God did in fact have a hand in some transition in complexity we still don’t fully understand.
You guys never seem to understand that it doesn’t matter how big the perceived holes are in evolutionary theory, no one is going to take the ID theory seriously until someone presents evidence for it. Good luck finding that evidence.
re: evolution for creationists
Very readable and useful article and references. Thank you. I do recommend, however, that the author use a spell-check when he is preparing for publication. Being literate is an atheist virtue… :<)