Thursday, April 12, 2012

K is for KIDDING

I am now going to cheat, but just a little.
I read this blog called "The Freedom of Nonbelief: K is for Kidding" today and I wrote a long comment.  I found myself thinking, this could be a whole post!  So now it is.  The 'nonbeliever' is Timothy Brannan, and here is my response to his A to Z post today.  (I used the same title, not just because he did, but because I so often find myself saying "You've got to be kidding!", and laughing uproariously, when I hear the latest 'scientific' claims made by supposedly scientific thinkers)

OK Tim, I'll bite.

I don't fit into the category of your typical follower (the comments above mine). I take issue with the kind of wide brush painting you did with this line:

People will argue about "teaching the controversy" but there is none. No one with any bit of scientific background that isn't blinded by faith thinks there is any other plausable theory other than evolution.

Of course there is great controversy, and it is created by those on both sides having much scientific background and mountains of facts. It is the interpretation of the facts that must be understood and judged well.

I have my BS in Geology from the U of Wisconsin. I know the strength of evidence for evolution that was 'forced down my throat' and it isn't very impressive. It consists of a few tidbits of facts ("a lot of animals have 5 bones in their forelimbs")and a whole series of assumptions connected by implausible guesses ("this means they evolved from each other")

The line-up of facts supporting a recent creation is much more scientifically supportable. For example, a sudden supernatural creation of life does not violate the long held LAW of biogenesis as evolutionary theory does.

Dianna Fielding, in her comment above, said; theories have evidence. Evidence by itself is only part of the issue. Evidence regarding something that is unrepeatable and was unobserved by man(like our beginnings)is far from proof. Every bit of real life evidence must fit into a worthy theory for it to stand. Contraindicating evidence must therefore demand that the theory be modified, and that without eliminating any other bit of evidence from the new theory.

I recommend this book that I reviewed on my blog for its feat of addressing just about every physical fact you can name in its theory (yes, just a theory). The scientific facts we all know (and love?) exclude the possibility of evolutionary, naturalistic origins. Some people of a different 'faith' seem to resent this factual claim, but they must deal with it as rationally as possible.

By the way, the whole book, in its 8th edition now, is available online.

Take a look, unless you really must not admit that there is credible science behind creationism.


  1. WOW, well...I would rather believe the teachings from the Bible. Not to comfortable about the whole evolution thing and coming from apes, although I have seen some people who resemble them. LOL Great post as always. Love your point of view.


    1. @Kathy,

      Remember. We don't come from apes, we share a common ancestor. We separated out from this ancestor about 2.4 million years ago. The evidence for this is on the human chromosome 2 which is two separate chromosomes in chimps but otherwise identical.

    2. Tim, until there is ANY proof for ANY part of the evolutionary theory, a careful thinker will refrain from making related assertions, like; "Remember. We don't come from apes..." as if this was a fact only forgotten. And "We separated out....2.4 million years ago." And then associating mere data about chromosomes with a mere theoretical conclusion?

      What else you got? Anything proven about evolution?

    3. Surely scientific fact about our closeness to apes and knowledge from fossils etc. is enough evidence to show that creatures were once one thing and then changed to another?
      Do you not find 'data' amongst fact? Surely, data cannot be data if it is not amongst factual content?

  2. Mike,

    Thank you so much for coming over to my blog and posting your well thought out response. That is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to get when I started up "The Freedom of Nonbelief".

    Plus I don't consider the use of my title as "cheating" by any stretch, it's a compliment really.

    I did respond to you over at my place. I won't post that here since this is your floor. You can respond to me here or there. Your choice.

    It's interesting really how your response to my post was the same as my response to the Tennessee legislation.

    Here is my deal. If people want to go to church or temple or a mosque or to circle of standing stones that is fine with me. But don't enact legislation that gives *your* particular view of the world based on faith the same weight as scientific inquiry. After all if we let one creation myth in, don't we have to let them all? what about the people that believe the world came from the sundering of a great dragon of chaos or we float on a disc supported by four elephants on the back of a giant sea turtle?

    The Other Side
    The Freedom of Nonbelief

    1. So you would not have let Galileo enter the classroom with his ideas either, because they were so outside the mainstream of the time? If someone comes in to teach that gravity actually separates objects of mass (like the disc on elephants idea) he would be quickly dis proven and dismissed. Why should anyone fear an open comparison of scientific interpretations of the evidence in front of them, unless they know that their conclusions are questionable.

      Besides all that, legislators are mandated to reflect the expressed interest of the citizens. Let them be, and let creationism fall (or stand) on its scientific merits.

    2. Actually it was Christians that did that to Galileo. And they only imprisoned him. Other scientists were killed.

      But you are right. I really don't have to do anything. Creationism has been dying for the last 20 or so years and this will all be a moot issue soon.

    3. So the christians persecuted Galileo because he held a heliocentric view of the solar system? No. The idea was deemed 'possible' by the church, but when Galileo seemed to attack his friends (both Pope Urban 8 and the Jesuits)in his 'Dislogue' they were backed into a corner and tried him for 'heresy'. Throughout the whole ordeal, it was the general population of scientists of the day who doubted Galileo's radical view that the earth went around the sun!

      Otherwise, would we not always be told that the church hated ALL scientists for their suggestion that their vaunted earth was not at the center of it all? Galileo was singled out by the power of the church because of his attitude, not his correct science.

      Remarkably, I disagree with your final statement also Tim. Eventually, faith in evolution will dwindle in the face of true science, and these past few centuries of foolish assertions will be regarded as the second dark age of science.

    4. Tim, I completely agree. Anyone can believe anything they like, but if one belief becomes a "that's just how it is" fact, then so can all beliefs.
      And Mike, I'm sorry to say it, but there is as much proof for evolution as there is for creationism.
      You are sounding like Richard Dawkins at the moment, just on the complete opposite side of the spectrum.
      M. x

    5. Upon reading your original post, Tim, I realise that you are just like Dawkins as well! You say in your 'D is for Richard Dawkins' post that religious people attack him, yet you miss out the major point that he attacks religious people just as viciously, if not more!
      He takes serious believers, such as Mike,here, and says that every religious person is exactly the same. He even takes those religions that kill for their belief (suicide bombers) and from this deducts that all religions are dangerous!

      As A.N. Wilson states when discussing Dawkins: "Why in God;s name do we take this silly, shallow scientist seriously?" He is "an arch simplifier, a hurtler of unnecessary insults".

      I agree with this point 100%. Dawkins tries to argue against religion yet doesn't really bother to understand it fully. However, at least Mike, here, knows science facts, whether he agrees with them or not!

      Now, feel free to answer, but I probably will not reply as I feel I am not suited for such a debate as this. These are two very opposite sides of the debate which are, ironically, very similar in the way that you both argue. You are both the replicas of Dawkins, whether you believe what he says or not.