Regular readers may remember the post Sean’s Christmas Message. I remarked in the comments that it had garnered no response. Well it appears they may have just been a little slow(in every sense of the word). Here is the first response:
It is interesting to note how the author frames this letter, I wonder if he even read my letter at all, before launching into his tirade.
This letter was followed by:
So there you have it. I have a busy hour or two ahead of me while I constuct a response and try and cram it nto something a newspaper can print in their letters column.
Feel free to suggest some sites that I may refer to or even suggest some points of argument. I will post my draft here tomorrow and will then send it to the paper the following day.
Related posts:
- Creationists undermine teachers and the science curriculum Setting the scene Teaching is by far the hardest and...
- Sean’s Christmas Message Image via Wikipedia Each year the churches in town...
- Bill Muehlenberg the bigot? I could have titled this post “Christians say the most...
Loading ...
Here is the rough draft:
I write in response to Name withheld (NW) and Amee Glass (AG) the Advocate Jan. 6
To N.W. I suggest that you read my letter again – a “scattergun tirade of complaints” against god? I complemented two churches on their good behaviour and criticised two pastors for their claims.
Now on to your and AG's misconceptions and misinformation; Modern Evolutionary theory is indeed 150 years old, although similar ideas were postulated as long ago as 6OOBC. You (NW)use the term theory in a pejoritive sense, like it's just an idea.
In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong – it is never proven correct. The theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; countless and ongoing peer reviews, nothing has disproved it. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined. Darwin knew nothing of genetics, but genetics compliments and supports evolutionary theory.
It is interesting to note at this point to that AG quotes Michael Denton whose later works assumed an evolutionary process as a given.
NW, you claim there are a inumerable examples of of irreducebly complex structures but quote only the eye, which modern biologists have proposed a number of possible avenus of evolution for. This is supported by evidence found across a range of species. As for it being a model of perfection, that depends on your perspective. For example an eagle has far better sight than a human.
NW give me one example of irreducible complexity that as not been soundly criticised and debunked by the scientific community, ie not the bacterial flagellum.
Your statement about being descended from monkeys diplays a lack understanding of the theory. I am not descended from a monkey, monkeys and humans share a common ancestor, that's why we share similar genes. We are indirectly related.
As to tranistional forms, I don't think the advocate can give me the space to list all the transitional fossil evidence paleontologists have discovered so I will give you one, Tiktaalik, discovered in 2004.
I accept scientific theories until those theories are proven wrong. I appreciate the scientific method as the most succusseful method of learning about the intracies of life on Earth, I try to follow the evidence to where it leads. To AG, I never claimed that bikes and cars were the direct result of evolution, but of the scientific method or thinking. AG, you also state the “intracies of the human body show evidence of design”. Please provide examples of this, you could start with the reasoning behind the “design” of the appendix or the blind spot in the human eye.
AG you postulate a number of reasons evolution continues to be accepted. Claiming that some of us do not want to be accountable to god. Evolution says nothing about god or accountability. I accept evolution and am I accountable to the community, the law, the tax office, my employer, my family etc. You claim that some want to believe that the world came about by chance( another misunderstanding of evolutionary theory). No AG, some of us accept evolution because we understand the science and evidence, some of us accept it because we trust, that when most experts agree, they are probably right, some people don't give much thought to evolution because it does not effect them or they don't care. Some people accept evolution because they have not been subjected to the misinformation of the Intelligent Design (creationist) movement
Finally, It saddens me that NW felt he'd been abused, he and you deserve to be challeged, but not abused.(not sure about this bit)
I admire your ability to provide concise refutations without using the phrase, "you utterly pig-ignorant moron" at least once. Overall, I think your response is a good one – it probably won't change Amee and (name witheld)'s minds, but it might encourage some undecided readers to investigate more thoroughly. And I also like the sign-off that you're unsure about at the end.
You might want to reduce the number of requests for evidence, since a) you aren't going to get any, and b) creotards (I speak from experience) tend to view any demand for actual evidence as a failure to reply to their rantings. Otherwise, I'd consider this an excellent reply.
Thanks Yunshui, I did have a lawyer (my wife) listen to me read it out loud many "thats potentially defematory" or "that's a bit personal" was cut. It's long already too,so while the more colorful language is absent now it most certainly was in the first run.
I agree it won't change their minds but I am writing for the general undecided audience. I think I might replace the last line with a suggestion that rather than look at a website that they pick up a science textbook or refer to a national science organisation
Very sound! And I'm sure you could have gone on and on, yet the amount of space you would be allotted would never allow this. It just sucks that we have to defend the basic premises of science. I believe in evolution because it just makes sense, bottom line. But then again, I'm not too proud to admit that I share a common ancestry with apes, in fact, when I look at the great apes, I am amazed at just how similar they are and I think this is SO COOL! I don't know, maybe it's all about pride. Too proud to admit that life was just an accident, to proud to admit that we too came from creatures that crawled out of the seas millions of years ago, too proud to admit that we are just another animal in this world.
On a side note, has dear AG ever taken a peek in a developmental biology book? Look at the embryos of birds, fish, reptiles, and humans, tell me you don't see resemblances at certain stages of development. Pretty telling if you ask me.
Anyhoo… cheers and look forward to reading the final draft!
Some good additional points there Trina. I too find a conection with great apes (my wife would argue that I share lots of similarities). I can rember looking into the eyes of a caged gorilla at one Zoo visit and being struck by the sad human expression in their face.
Just a few tips:
* Theory != hypothesis
* The Theory of Evolution does not claim that humans are descended from monkeys
* Transitioning from one species to another takes millions of years; it doesn't "just happen."
Buu700,
Welcome and thanks. I had 1 and 2 , but 3 I had not considered yet. i have a lot ideas rushing aorund in my head at the moment
One of the biggest bugbears creationists have is the time scale of life, it's just too incomprehensible to some how long its actually taken mankind to get where we are.
Al the irreducible complexity theories have been well and truly debunked.
have a look at this file http://ozatheist.org/files/evolution.pdffor some tips
will get back to you with some more stuff, got to go and watch TV – Party Animals – starring the guy who is the new Dr Who
Thanks Oz. I actually have seen and read that document before, but it is lost somewhere on a harddrive. Thanks for saving my the time.
you possibly got it from me the first time, I blogged about it earlier this year.
here's another couple of sites that may help:
http://creationtheory.org/
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/unders...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/ind...
PS. character on Party Animals was reading the God Delusion
Canard-tastic! Another one: "the [complexity of the] eye". Would the anonymous author like to tell us whose eye he or she is talking about? A human's? A fish's? A squid's? A fly's? A "Innumerable examples of "irreducible complexity"". Like? Will the author repeat the age old favourites of the blood clotting mechanism or the bacterial flagellum or do they have "immunerable" other examples? At least they didn't mention "macro vs microevolution". Well, by name anyway.
Canard-tastic! Another one: "the [complexity of the] eye". Would the anonymous author like to tell us whose eye he or she is talking about? A human's? A fish's? A squid's? A fly's? "Innumerable examples of "irreducible complexity"". Like? Will the author repeat the age old favourites of the blood clotting mechanism or the bacterial flagellum or do they have "immunerable" other examples? At least they didn't mention "macro vs microevolution". Well, by name anyway.
Yes lots of claims, little evidence.
just received this link :
http://media.nap.edu/podcasts/nax48scienceevo.mp3 (about 13MB)
a talk about evolution and creationism, has some basic claims like you have made in your letter. don't know if it will help refine your letter but thought you and your readers may be interested in this podcast
Well, it's good to know that creationists do in fact exist in Australia. I was beginning to get a bit worried.
I'm glad you invoked such a response by them, because it means that you challenged their worldview enough for them to feel threatened. Well done.
Well yes I guess that's a way of looking at it. Its also chance to embarass them
just be careful how far you push them, do you remember this incident:
http://ozatheist.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/evoluti...
5 years for manslaughter? That is some extreme bullshit my friend, as the intent was definitely to kill the heretic scum…
Hey I am pretty dangerous with a knife, if anyone remembers the incident where I nearly severed my thumb
I recall that. Have you ever considered a job in heavy machinery, or going to a culinary arts school?
I did once work in an aluminium factory nearly gutted myself on a improperly working drop saw. Is a picture starting to form here?
This is why Australian video games cost three times as much; companies can't afford to cover the warranty on you danger prone people.
Holy shit.
OK – this is seriously scary because 1) I am currently working in this area on a medium term contract, 2) Because I can't stand the lunacy of religion, 3) country people seem deeply religious, 4) I am surrounded by Muslims, 5) I run an atheist blog and Youtube channel, 6) I fear I might not be able to hold my tongue when the moment arrives.
Has any creationist actually bothered to UNDERSTAND the god damned scientific method? What kind of inconsistent moron would challenge evolution solely on the fact that its a theory, yet ignore the theories of relativity, gravity, particles, and cells? I made a blog post about this months ago, as have many others wrote about it in books and mentioned it in lectures and debates, yet they keep repeating moronic statements over and over. Good luck on your post, sean.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of ranting about this particular issue. Incidentally, if Mr Anonymous-Creationist-Ninja wants to challenge science on its own terms, what does that make creationism in comparison to evolution's "just a theory"? I know there are scientists out there who speculate that the universe is too well-designed to have happened by chance, but I've yet to meet one who can pass this idea off as anything better than a very vague hypothesis.
Anyway, my brain is too addled with red wine and lack of sleep to have anything remotely helpful to add. Good luck trying to fashion something newspaper-sized to hurl against the impenetrable fortress of pig-headed ignorance. So far the only plan I can come up with involves the entire contents of the UQ Biol. Sciences library, and a trebuchet.
When it comes to the evolution creation debate, it has been and alwas will be a theory against a hypothesis. Evolution is never going to become a law because its impossible to test as a constant because it takes so frelling long. Creationism will never be anything more than a hypothesis because the creo-bots absolutely fail at producing evidence, and you can't get past hypothesis with weak ass logical arguments.
Good luck with the sleepiness and wine though, I've got sleepiness and coffee, I just wish the latter would take its effect soon.
Calling Intelligent design a "hypothesis" is more respect than it deserves.
Stop it you are killing me here LOL
Some really ick religious guy said that if you repeat a lie often enough….
Some really sick religious guy said that if you repeat a lie often enough….
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will buy it. Of course, I mean over 90% of americans believe the George Washington cherry tree story for instance. Scientology is proof that anyone will believe anything at any time, for any reason.
Oh, just had another thought. Read somewhere about the number of fossils being exceptionally small (compared to the number of animals that actually die), something to do with how difficult it is to actually 'produce' fossils (produce isn't the right word, but you get the idea) . This is one, of several, reasons why we don't have that many 'transitional' fossils.
There are 139 fine grained species to species transitional fossils. This is actually far more than Darwin expected due to specific instances in which fossils form. Name Witheld is demanding the equivalent of a creationist being asked to account for Jesus actions minute by minute on the day of the crucifiction.
but we do have many of them, tens of thousands in fact. Fossilization will happen to about .06% of animals, and considering how many animals have died in the history of the planet, the thousands we have found are only a small percent of the entirety of the planets fossils.
note: ever fossil is a transitional fossil because every animal is a transitional animal unless it genetically lacks the ability to reproduce.
Yes it does depend on how you define it. Darwin would have been pleasantly surprised by the nuumber of fossils discovered
Yes, but I think he would have been infinitely even more impressed with the knowledge of DNA, which by evidence standards, blows the fossils right out of the water.
Agreed. I think he would have been chuffed to learn how far we had come.
Sometimes the stupid makes my head hurt. It really does.
I'd recommend avoiding all contact with the intarwebs for the next 1000 or so years then, as you can't hide from it here.
This stupid gave me an adrenalin kick, I powered through a 4km run and a 2km hill walk
I completely agree with Oz. If you think of the number of animals that have existed over millions of years, yet the small number of fossils, it is obvious that we are not going to find every transitional fossil. And the smaller an animal is, the less likely the bones are going to fossilize as they are more delicate and many times the remains get scattered and the bones get crushed and broken. Besides, are we going to excavate every inch of the planet to look for said fossils just so we can make a point that is blatantly obvious to begin with? It makes me a little crazy to think we've evolved this far just to de-evolve with this kind of thinking. Sigh.
I have an ice pack I find it reduces the swelling after banging my head against a brick wall in trying to comprehend the idiocy
Sean,
I like your letter. Had I been in your position, an important early stage of my letter-writing process would have been to write an intelligible argument laced with rude remarks about the person whose argument I was rebutting. From that stage, I would have read the letter out loud, especially the rude bits, taking appropriate time to howl with laughter at my rapier wit and my opponent's idiocy. I would have repeated this step as often as necessary or enjoyable, or until I was running out of time and really had to move along. The next, extremely critical stage, would have been to go back and delete and all the hilarious rude stuff (computers are so handy for this part). Having done that, I would have returned to honing the intelligible argument. Finally, I would have had someone else read the letter out loud to a) look for parts of the argument that need to be strengthened, and b) make sure all the rude stuff really was deleted.
This is a process I've actually employed in the course of writing letters, academic articles, etc. The writing takes longer, but it's enjoyable and therapeutic.
Chappy,
Thankyou for the appreciation ( have you been to vjack's blog recently?) You are describing much of the two hoursI spent last night constructing this letter. I admit that i do currentl enjoy the mental exercise of constructing a letter. I suspect that if they maintain a campaign of idiocy my enthusiasm may dwindle.
Hello, I can’t understand how to add your blog ( seantheblogonaut.com ) in my rss reader
————————
internet signature: http://hixoh.ru/
seantheblogonaut.com – now in my rss reader)))
————————
sponsored link: http://dewat.ru/