This is why religious republicans know democrats are stuburn mules

After watching the Muppets movie, I went back to an old thread.

My analogies where wrong because I am not a biologist; therefore, biologists, who the majority accept the speciation definition must be right and creationism must be wrong, and intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for creationism to shove the Christian God down the throats of children who would otherwise have freedom of religion.. I never understood the whole ID is creationism in disguise thing, but ok. This whole absurd conversation was from an article on the Muppets of all things, and Fox Business’s segment. The Moviebob, also not a biologist, assert that global warming and evolution are absolute scientific facts.


They are not.

The first poor analogy was cats evolving from dogs. Well, that was not a poor analogy, the “I could make it look like”… I can’t, because I am not a biologist. Neither is my father. However, he is mathematically/technically leaning very bright man, and like me, he is also fascinated by biology and computers. As for his education, he has a minor in psychology in addition to his MDIV, and he came up with the analogy in the first sentence. The evolutionary theory of all speciation (not isolated subsets) has huge problems with it going back to the Cambrian explosion, namely the explosion itself with little in terms of hard evidence for chemical abiogenesis. From that point on, the fossil record is nowhere near as continuous as evolutionary biologist would like, despite the repeated meme of “overwhelming evidence”. In fact, the theory of punctuated evolution, that is whole function systems suddenly appearing in the next instead of gradually forming from generation to generation, is the current fad in evolutionary biology.

Of course, you will not see stuff like that on their public forums, like talkorigins. That is a site for those who, like moviebob, would like to define ignorance not by knowledge, qualifications, or accomplishments, but by whether or not an individual has full faith in the living God who created man in His image with His own hands, not indirectly. That site and its neighbors  just reeks of obsessive demands of acknowledgement from the lessers in their eyes and just overall smug superiority. Sometimes I wish the other side of that debate had such an exhuastive collection of carefully organized and catagorized counterarguments, but most of the time I am glad they do not show such huge levels of ... I am not sure I have words to describe what they have done over at talkorigins.

The next mistake was going after the definition of species or kind. I hated taxonomy in high school, and I remember little of it, so I went for the biblical definition (each after its own kind). Yes, under our definition of kind/species, one has been observed generating the other. However, scientist have made interesting, but nevertheless tenuous, links between radically different kinds, say between birds and dinosaurs.  Interesting that Pat went for circular evolution as a counter argument, because such is used as evidence by our side that the kind of large net change, say from apes to man, does not happen in nature… at all. The argument from definition claim would have been enough.

Even with all that, I can have fun with the phrase “it takes a lot a faith to think we’re accidents of nature” but it takes a whole lot less faith to be an agnostic and believe Genesis is not a historical account, or many things in the bible for that matter, and that man was never created. I believe in absurd things, things that cannot be demonstrated clearly by archeology: Man being formed from dirt, a worldwide flood, entire nations being wiped out not just by natural but supernatural things stated well in advanced,even a talking donkey. Most absurdly of all, I believe a man was born of a virgin, died… and rose again three days later.

That is the tangent the conversation went, but the relevant topic was not evolution, it was global warming. I will save that discussion for another day.