This is the year of Darwin (yes, yes, it’s also the year of astronomy, I know), and especially this week -- around the date of Chuck’s birth -- we are seeing a spike of events, radio and tv pieces, and printed articles. (Expect a second peak in November, for the anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species.) One of the most schizophrenic treatments of the topic surely is the one published this week by Forbes magazine. They have a number of solid pieces by recognized scientists and science writers (for instance by evo-devo researcher Sean Carroll, philosopher Michael Ruse, and writer Michael Shermer). But they also have four, I repeat four, insanely anti-intellectual articles by pro-ID writers: Ken Ham (the “CEO” of Answers in Genesis and founder of the oxymoronic Creation Museum in Kentucky), John West (the hack author of Darwin Day in America), Jonathan Wells (the infamous author of Icons of Evolution), and my colleague here at Stony Brook, Neurosurgery Vice Chairman Michael Egnor. I will ignore the first three because I have dealt with them on numerous occasions in the past, and concentrate instead on Egnor.
He begins his piece by stating that “As an undergraduate biochemistry major, I was uncomfortable with
Darwinian explanations for biological complexity. Living things certainly appeared to be designed.” That’s a bad enough reflection on undergraduate science education in the United States at the time (alas, it ain’t much better today, in this respect), but the fact that Egnor persists in such a naive way of thinking today, as a professor of neurosurgery is really a shame (for him and for Stony Brook).
Egnor goes on trotting out the same old tired creationist “objections” to evolution. The fossil record has discontinuities (yes, it does, and they have been shown over and over to be perfectly compatible with evolution, considering the time scales involved); biomolecules are so complex that they couldn’t possibly have originated naturally (an argument from ignorance, both in the philosophical sense and in the personal sense that Egnor is obviously ignorant about molecular evolution); the genetic “code” couldn’t exist without design, because only intelligent beings produce codes (an astounding example of taking a metaphor literally instead of looking at the perfectly explicable biochemistry of nucleic acids). Then Egnor proceeds by asking what he seems to think are devastating questions for “evolutionists.” Let’s take a look.
“Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design theory isn't scientific, when both intelligent design and Darwinism are merely the affirmative and negative answers to the same scientific question: Is there evidence for teleology in biology?” This betrays Egnor’s ignorance of the nature of science. The question of teleology in biology is most certainly not a scientific question, it is a philosophical one. And “Darwinism” is not a negative answer to that question, it is a positive answer to the question of how adaptive complexity originated during the history of life on earth.
“Why do Darwinists--scientists--seek recourse in federal courts to silence criticism of their theory in public schools?” Because the issue is one of government-mandated separation of Church and State and school board-regulated criteria for what should be taught in science classrooms. The creation-evolution debate is not a scientific debate, it is a social controversy, and as such it naturally, if unfortunately, involves court challenges.
“What is it about the Darwinian understanding of biological origins that is so fragile that it will not withstand scrutiny by schoolchildren?” Are you kidding? Schoolchildren do not understand plenty of other solidly established science either. For instance, many children (and a good number of adults) seem to think of the world in terms of Aristotelian, not Newtonian (let alone relativistic) physics. Should we ban Sir Isaac from science curriculum as a result?
Egnor ends his piece with a long whine about how he has been vilified on the internet (well, join the club, dude), and how “fundamentalist atheists” have called for him to be fired. I don’t know how good a neurosurgeon Egnor is, but I assume he is good enough to have obtained his post at Stony Brook. As such, he should retain it. But if he were in my Department (Ecology & Evolution) I most certainly would call for him to be booted out immediately on the ground that he doesn’t understand the basic foundations of the science in which he is supposed to carry out scholarship and which he should be able to teach to students.
This isn’t a matter of “ostracism” or “intolerance” (rather ironic terms when they come from creationists), it is a matter of intellectual honesty. I don’t subscribe to the Dawkins-style attack on creationists (amply quoted by Egnor, of course), which he calls “ignorant, stupid, insane … or wicked.” Most creationists are none of the last three (though ignorance often does play a role. But then again, I’m just as ignorant of neurosurgery). But Egnor, Ham, Wells, West and especially the editors of Forbes should understand once and for all that evolution is to biology what relativity or quantum mechanics are to physics, what the big bang is to cosmology, or what the atomic theory is to chemistry. Evolution is a scientific fact as solid as they come, and a scientific theory as well established as any other scientific theory is. Creationism and its cousin intelligent design are primitive ideas that were reasonable enough in a pre-scientific society, but do not have a respectable place at the table of intellectual discourse anymore. It’s time to get used to it.
About Rationally Speaking
Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Forbes on evolution and intelligent design
Posted by Unknown at 9:31 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Great, short concise reply Massimo. Egnor is a shame to scientist everywhere, he makes the most obvious logical fallacies over and over again. Either he's completely ignorant to the rules of Critical Thinking and really does not understand a good argument from a fallacious one, or he just doesn't care about the logic, as long as he reaches the conclusion he wants. Either way he should be embarrassed.ReplyDelete
Happy Darwin day to you and great interview with the SGU crew.
Rats - posted a comment & lost it.... Googles's post mechanism seems 2 be buggy after verification of the funny text. May be coz someelse posted a comment when I was trying 2 do same.ReplyDelete
Have not read Darwin. Did HE believe that his theory was at odds only with most prevailing religious beliefs, or did he negate gods, intelligent design, maybe deism altogether?
What xactly is the prob w/ID and evo coexistence after Bible stories, etc have been excluded from discussion? Humans created machines which can be said to evolve. Computer programs can even evolve without human intervention. Same as god/human interaction, just at a different level. I understand the frustration w/narrow-mindedness and that nearly all ID people r trying 2 sell a traditional western god. Ignoring them for a sec, is it possible that everyone on the 'evo side' cannot accept the phrase "designed 2 evolve"?
I've followed much of the back-and-forth between Egnor, and in particular Steven Novella at the Neurologica blog, as well as various other science and skeptical bloggers. Not once have I heard anyone suggest that he should be fired. That is not to say that it didn't happen, of course.ReplyDelete
Egnor is a dualist, and while he is likely an excellent surgeon, his arguments for dualism, as well as the tactics that he employs in arguing for it, are straight out the creationist playbook. He cherry picks, refuses to address straight forward, evidence based rebuttals of his posts, preferring instead to concentrate on petty things, and he is steadfast in his refusal to acknowledge that his arguments have been shown to wrong.
Finally, I just wanted to say something about what you have said:
"I don’t subscribe to the Dawkins-style attack on creationists (amply quoted by Egnor, of course), which he calls “ignorant, stupid, insane … or wicked.” Most creationists are none of the last three (though ignorance often does play a role. But then again, I’m just as ignorant of neurosurgery).
When read in context, Dawkins is simply saying that most creationists know very little about evolution (ignorance), and while as you quite rightly point out, we are all ignorant of much, much more than we knowledgeable, it is profoundly arrogant to, not only speak out against something that you haven't bothered to research, but attempt to affect various policies.
Alas, there are some people — particularly the leaders of both the creationist and ID movement — who are, in some respects, quite dangerous, and some would say, perhaps wicked. They aren't stupid, and they do read the rebuttals of their nonsense, so there is little excuse for continuing to pedal falsehoods.
Whenever I read Egnor's writings on Evolution, I wonder if perhaps he didn't take his neurosurgery courses through a College of Barbers and Surgeons.ReplyDelete
Good post!!! M. What on earth happen to these people? Completely agree, this is a matter of intellectual honesty.ReplyDelete
To Forbes credit, Jerry Coyne has been allowed to rebut Egnor's nonsense on the site.ReplyDelete
I'll take a stab at answering DaveS' question:ReplyDelete
Humans created machines which can be said to evolve. Computer programs can even evolve without human intervention.
Well, no. "Evolve" is not the same thing as "change". Computer simulations of evolution have been created, but there is mimicry is not the same thing as identity. The computer programs to which you refer operate in a highly contrived environment with defined parameters and defined constraints. We have computer programs that simulate metabolism, but that doesn't mean we have created life inside a computer.
is it possible that everyone on the 'evo side' cannot accept the phrase "designed 2 evolve"?
The problem with the phrase is the word "designed". WHO designed it? God? The phrase implies an agent capable of effecting such a design. That sure sounds like a god to me. We prefer to use phrasing that doesn't presume an answer, a sort of "just the facts, ma'am" phrasing.
Re Chris C.'s reply:ReplyDelete
1st Q: Was not referring to simulations of evolution, was referring to computers and the evolution of machines made by humans e.g. cars, washing machines, etc computers being an extreme example. Computer programs that do not require human intervention once launched buttress my point.
1st Q: Yes, designed by a god, which I think of as an entity functioning on a different plane than humans, neither good nor bad, having its own needs not always aligned with human needs.
Please explain what you mean by "different plane", What sort of thing is that? It may be something that you can not explain with words, I suppose.
Sorry, the proper nickname is DaveS, just for trying to get a response.ReplyDelete
Hi Icaro - was busy welcoming my son home on valDay break with hot wings and beer!ReplyDelete
One answer is the different planes humans and machines can be said to occupy. Again, I use machines because they were created by humans. Similarly, imagine a set of gods, some of which were responsible for creating humans, operating in a different space than the space you and I suppose we occupy. Maybe realm is a better term.
The point is that it is just as presumptuous to think that we are not part of a larger picture as it is to think we humans are alone in the universe. It appears to me that the atheist's and skeptic's argument is "Show me the money".
Although it is risky top question the motivation of others, it seems that atheists take this stance in reaction to prevailing religious belief. Dawkins has made a well-reasoned case for his stance, but consider this: I read that humans are 'wired' to believe in god, and that our mystics and prophets are delusional. To me, neither point negates the existence of the entity with which the person is communicating. Also, while discoveries of the early to mid 20th century do not necessarily point to gods, they make arguments for their nonexistence that much weaker.
Well, DaveS, human machines do not evolve naturally, they are changed by humans. The fact that machines require humans to design them does not mean that life requires a god to design it. In fact, the whole point of evolutionary theory is to provide an natural explanation for how life on earth developed that. So you don't need a god to explain life. If you want to believe in a god, that's your business. But there's no connection, positive or negative, between religious belief and evolution. The two have nothing to do with each other.ReplyDelete
ChrisC: Evolution explains the progression from state A to state B, as you say. But I do not have a clue as to what 'natural' means.ReplyDelete
A non-human observer of the travels of cars on roads throughout the years may see humans as nothing more than occupants of the cars. Such an observer has absolutely no reason to think the cars did not evolve very much on their own.
Reality is simply one's point of view.
"So you don't need a god to explain life. If you want to believe in a god, that's your business. But there's no connection, positive or negative, between religious belief and evolution. The two have nothing to do with each other."
Nonsense. Both have to do with origins and are clearly completing theories. People just want religion to "butt out" of their lives, that's all there's to that.
I don't know where else in the natural world "something" quite literally comes from nothing, but anyone who applies any thought to it whatsoever knows that NO WHERE in THE NATURAL world does such thing occur. NO WHERE.
It is then beyond me why the list of clergy mentioned above all of a sudden wants to get into this discussion and give up ground on the accuracy of the general principles found in the Bible. The Bible also says that at the 'end of days' that 'even the elect will be deceived'. So I guess that is exactly where we're at TODAY. "The elect", college profs and clergy are without question deceived.
If I'm the last person standing saying these things, I don't really care. Its better to be alone and be truthful than be with a big ol bunch of people all heading in the same precarious direction. Alone is good.
DaveS writes: "A non-human observer of the travels of cars on roads throughout the years may see humans as nothing more than occupants of the cars. Such an observer has absolutely no reason to think the cars did not evolve very much on their own."ReplyDelete
Very well, DaveS, please present an hypothesis providing the mechanism by which cars could modify themselves. Do they grow little arms and use welding machines to take themselves apart and put themselves back together in a new form? Neodarwinism provides an explanation of the mechanism by which life is able to evolve. You need to provide an explanation of the mechanism by which cars would evolve. It can't be just "magic".
Caliana rightly points out that religion and evolution are connected in the minds of many people. I need to expand on my point to respond to that objection. My point is that there is no necessary logical connection between religion and evolution. A person looking at a cloud might see a ship, but the connection in that person's mind does not establish a necessary logical connection between clouds and ships.
"I don't know where else in the natural world "something" quite literally comes from nothing,"
Agreed. (Well, technically speaking, there is a quantum process that does exactly that, but I don't want to get too technical on you.) But if you are suggesting that neodarwinism posits something coming from nothing, you are incorrect.
" "The elect", college profs and clergy are without question deceived. "
If you reject rationalism, why are you bothering to engage us in a discussion? If you simply want to declare "I'll believe whatever I choose to believe", then go ahead and leave it at that.
OK Chris, lets do evolution in the simplest terms: mommy + daddy + environment conspire to produce an evolved baby. Similarly the observer sees the older generation of car and the 'environment' producing the new car. Not magic at all. If the observer subscribes to Darwinian theory, then the environment would seem to be the highway system. The observer does not know the Gospel of GM.ReplyDelete
We know better. We know the 'environment' responsible for creating new car models is really human manufacturing. Tell that to the heretical observer who sees not the humans.
DaveS, so you would explain this process to the alien observer by telling him that mommy and daddy cars beget baby cars that grow up to become new and different cars?ReplyDelete
well yes, but would not leave out mention of the environmental impact that makes the baby car a bit different from parents.ReplyDelete
The problem with your approach is that cars do not come from mommy cars and daddy cars; they come from factories. So they do not evolve, and you would by lying to your alien friend.ReplyDelete
Sorry Chris - I did not read yr earlier post correctly. So strike my earlier post.ReplyDelete
I would explain to the alien that the cars did not evolve but were manufactured by the same humans whom he sees as only the occasional occupants. The alien would be incredulous as he only observes the roads, and what is on the roads, nothing else. You can say all you want about the 'truth' and the way things really work, but your vantage point is every bit as limited as the alien's.
Hey Massimo, good post, and it looks like good old Michael E. is up to his usual egnorance. Congrats on your latest interview on the SGU since episode 3. Especially interesting was when you were discussing the demarcation problem, and the examples you gave to illustrate your points. Very cool...ReplyDelete
YThe alien would be incredulous as he only observes the roads, and what is on the roads, nothing else.ReplyDelete
Apparently your alien is a very irrational person. If we had a rational alien, he would compare the information he can observe with the information you provide and at least determine whether the two sets of data were consistent. He would then determine whether the evidence available to him were sufficient to conclude that the hypothesis (that cars are built by humans) is a good explanation.
You seem to be founding your case on some sort of information-hiding; I think you'll need to be more explicit in your analogy. Indeed, perhaps it would be useful to start over and re-state your line of reasoning just so we know exactly what we're talking about. Right now there's a lot of variance in the position you've staked out.
But then again, I’m just as ignorant of neurosurgery).ReplyDelete
That's exactly why I suspect you don't go around talking about neurosurgery. And that's the problem with people like Egnor (who?). Had they some dignity, they would shut up about things they are ignorant of and stick to what they know.
Re: his professional competence, etc.. Well, playing stupid with evolutionary biology does not impact his job as a luxury technician (no matter how good, I see most MDs as the biological equivalent of car mechanics). But it sure worries me that someone who believes stupid things like that might one day be working on my head. I would be wondering: Is his thinking always that sloppy? Is he always that ignorant of how science works and how rational conclusions are reached? How can I trust him my brain if he's showing us he refuses to use his, at least some of the time (to be charitable).
The problem with the non-sense you described (plus the fanatical relativism) is that we can always show the factory to the alien. You will never show us the fantasies you talk about. That's a fundamental (and dooming) difference.
Chris & J:ReplyDelete
Both of you seem to think that it is possible for the alien observing only cars on roads to see betond the road, perhaps even all the way to Detroit's factories. Maybe so. In this case, I am not sure how one talks to these aliens or even shows them things in order to rid them of their misguided views.
J - Pls work harder before declaring the difference between god/human and human/car alien dooming, as I reject simple inter-species communication across both pairs. Not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it is not a simple matter.
We can go a bit further and allow nothing outside of those roads to be available for the alien's sensory consumption. This makes it that much harder for us to sell our reality to them.
We have been told again and again by the great thinkers of this past century that there is much more out there than meets the eye. Even more telling, no matter how hard or how long we dig, there will always be an unknown. This should give one pause.
Can you not see that one's environment is limited to what one can sense?
OK, DaveS, so your basic point is that if you limit the amount of information available to a scientist-observer, their conclusions will be constrained by those limitations on the information available. So now there are two issues:ReplyDelete
1. Concerning your point that cars evolve. Yes, you can come up with a highly contrived scenario in which an observer would not be able to contradict the claim that cars evolve. Of course, an even easier way to accomplish the same goal would be to deny the observer ANY information. Keep the alien on his home planet so that he can only see the earth as a dot of light through a telescope. He couldn't contradict the claim that cars evolve. Ta-da!
2. On the larger issue of evolutionary theory, you surely are not claiming that the constraints on information available to biologists are sufficient to render evolutionary theory unreliable, are you?
3. It might be that you are claiming that, under suitably contrived circumstances, an observer might be fooled into thinking that cars evolve. If this is in fact your claim, I disagree. A scientific observer of a natural phenomenon would be able to discern when the amount of information available is insufficient to support the conclusion. If we were to cast this in terms of how science works, then you might indeed have a weak-minded alien observer taking the limited information you have given him and concluding that cars evolve. However, another alien scientist would criticize his hypothesis by noting that it does not take into account the possibility that intelligent creatures are building the cars. This would create an alternate hypothesis that could readily be falsified by looking for the intelligent creatures. If a thorough examination of cars and their history showed no evidence of such intelligent creatures, then the hypothesis of automotive evolution would be strengthened. However, a thorough investigation of cars and their history would immediately demonstrate the existence of car factories and thereby eliminate the hypothesis of automotive evolution.
I'll ask you to think carefully in preparing your reply, and word it as precisely as you can. Your posts are rather vague and require me to answer multiple possible meanings.
Excellent comments on 2/12, although a little over the top aggressive in its tone! Chill! We'll get there. Science always wins. Also, albeit new to the table, I thought creationism and ID were not cousins, but identical!ReplyDelete
Lots of hypotheses floating around.ReplyDelete
At the risk of sounding as vague, I will simply refer you to Abbot's Flatland and use those well-written analogies rather than mine. I am not disrespecting any scientific theory, I am pointing out that they exist in a context, nothing more.
Chris: "Agreed. (Well, technically speaking, there is a quantum process that does exactly that, but I don't want to get too technical on you."ReplyDelete
And your proof that this process is entirely natural is what exactly? If it takes such attention to detail to explain, it certainly must be an extraordinary one.
"A person looking at a cloud might see a ship, but the connection in that person's mind does not establish a necessary logical connection between clouds and ships."
The fact that you see religion like some people see ships in the clouds and whatnot does not mean that the connection between evolution and faith or religion is equally vacuous. THAT IS ONLY WHAT YOU SEE. Even if it is all in the mind (the connection that is) that is quite powerful enough.
My husband spoke this morning in his teaching (pslm 1-9) about a time in his life when he actually gave evolution quite a bit of credibility. He knew that some parts and pieces of evolution did not quite fit or make total sense, but he was quite content living his life on his own terms and saw no (logical or illogical) reason to review the evidence. Logic really had not a thing to do with it.
And as it turns out, being so content doing his own thing, marrying me would even be less logical. ;) Or maybe he was just secretly growing suspect of being told to see monkeys, primates and neanderthals in the clouds, so he married a person who only sees "clouds".
Caliana, the natural process to which I refer is the spontaneous appearance of charged pairs, most commonly electron/positron pairs. The process is fairly simple to describe: in empty space, and completely randomly, an electron/positron pair simply appears. Poof! Just like that. The mechanism for this arises from the uncertainty principle. It forms the basis of another phenomenon called Hawking Radiation, associated with black holes. If you'd like to be taken on a tour of the mathematics, I suggest you consult some of the writings of Stephen Hawking. Yes, it's advanced physics.ReplyDelete
Next, you argue that the connection that exists in your mind between evolution and religion is solid enough for you to believe that it exists. Again, this is a simple statement of tautology: if you believe in it, then you believe in it. That's fine with me. But if you want to convince somebody ELSE that there's a connection between the two, you'll need to cite an objective reason for logically associating evolution with religion.
My husband spoke this morning in his teaching (pslm 1-9) about a time in his life when he actually gave evolution quite a bit of credibility.
I don't give evolution the slightest iota of credibility. I rely on rationalism, not faith. After examining a plethora of evidence, I have come to the conclusion that neodarwinism provides the best explanation for that evidence. If the evidence changes, I'll change my conclusions. I can drop neodarwinism in a flash if evidence appears that clearly contradicts it. However, no such evidence has ever appeared.
As Richard Feynman said, religion is based on faith, and science on skepticism. That's the fundamental difference between us. I don't conclude from this that I'm in any way better than you. You must walk your own path. My path has what I consider to be important advantages for me. But if you don't value the advantages that I value, then my path is not for you.
BTW, I stated that neodarwinism does not require that something come from nothing. This "something from nothing" claim appears often in creationist opposition to neodarwinism, but you seem to have abandoned it. If you have, that's good, but I wanted to check and make certain that this was not merely an oversight.ReplyDelete
In the Uncertainty Principle (which i did try to read long ago) Heisenberg also discussed the matter of the hierarchy of principles. Physics minus chemistry and biology still works just fine. Chemistry minus biology works, but will not work with out Physics. Biology, otoh, is an incredibly dependent discipline and certainly no place to start in making ones philosophical deductions from!ReplyDelete
Chris: "But if you want to convince somebody ELSE that there's a connection between the two, you'll need to cite an objective reason for logically associating evolution with religion."
The connection is that evolution tends to be thought to an antidote (to most people who claim to "believe" it) against true religion is: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27 http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jam&c=1&v=27&t=KJV#vrsn/27
Logic? Nah, I don't think so. Women have an incredible impact on what men think over these sorts of philosophical affairs. Mothers, wives, girlfriends, potential girlfriends. Far more than either gender would admit to I am sure. But since principles that are laid down in beginning of an idea are so important...
"...Darwin held back the book to avoid offending his wife, said Ruth Padel, the naturalist's great-great-granddaughter. "She said he seemed to be putting God further and further off," Padel said in her north London home. "But they talked it through, and she said, "Don't change any of your ideas for fear of hurting me.'"
Life too short to live it as pushover like Darwin's wife supposedly did. And the damage done for doing so, that's a whole other matter! If Darwin had been my husband, he wouldn't have had the right or latitude to go on a 200 year pity party and take like a few hundred million people with him.
Caliana, you write:ReplyDelete
Biology, otoh, is an incredibly dependent discipline and certainly no place to start in making ones philosophical deductions from!
Indeed so. However, my deductions are scientific in nature, not philosophical. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, not a philosophical one. Render unto science the things that are science's, and unto philosophy the things that are philosophy's.
Next you write:
The connection is that evolution tends to be thought to an antidote (to most people who claim to "believe" it) against true religion is:
The sentence as written is garbled, but you seem to be saying that evolution contradicts religion. That's only true for those people who interpret the Bible literally. The Catholic Church has no objection to neodarwinism. So there's no contradiction between evolution and Catholicism. Indeed, quite a few Christians have no problem with evolution.
Your final paragraphs seem rather weird to me. You seem to be saying that rationalism doesn't count for anything, and that women should somehow seduce or trick or manipulate men into abandoning rationalism. I'm pretty sure that none of the women I know would agree with you. In any case, the underlying assumption you make is that neodarwinism is responsible for a great deal of damage. I will point out that all of modern biology is based on neodarwinism. If you throw away neodarwinism, you throw away modern biology. And if you throw away modern biology, you take medicine back to where it was about 70 years ago. So here's the challenge I put to you: if you truly do believe that neodarwinism is wrong and undesirable, then you would eschew modern medicine as the spawn of neodarwinism. Are you so certain of your rejection of neodarwinism that you would deny yourself and your loved ones the benefit of modern medicine?
quite a few Christians have no problem with evolutionReplyDelete
Chris, I'd say that the majority of Christians have no problem with evolution. It's just a few crazier sects common in the USA who have such a problem (and very few copycats in other countries).
Are you so certain
Oh, yeah. The fundies are very, very certain of everything, they will tell you any time. But they are also masters of hypocrisy, as far as I've seen so far. Are you too, Cal? If you are not, good for you. Please let me know and I'll send you my bank account info so you can deposit all your money there, please, as commanded by Luke 6:30 -- "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." Or do you want to go to Hell? Is money more important?
related, but not directly: someone I was talking to yesterday made the comment that a 'research institute' discovered human footprints in the same strata as dinosaur footprints. (And of course, this blows away the TOE) Now, I know that this cannot possibly be true, but am wondering if anyone on here knows anything about this spurious claim?ReplyDelete
yes, that one is an old claim, which usually refers to alleged footprints of humans and dinosaurs found in the Paluxy River in Texas. It's bogus, as you might imagine. The dinosaur prints are genuine but the "human" ones are simply fossilized puddles.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete