What do you get when you take a bunch of religious fundamentalists and take them on a tour of America while challenging their faith? Well, you get people even more determined to believe in silly bullshit while accusing everyone else of fabricating evidence of things they don’t understand. Worth a watch if you’ve got the 54 minutes of spare time to throw around.
Tag Archives: evolution
Dr. Pepper ad upsets Christians
My friends and loved ones will testify to my undying love of Dr. Pepper. I like the taste, I like the logo, and for a while, I even had a Dr. Pepper background on my x-box. You could say I was a little obsessed with the drink, to say the least.
Now I’m officially in love, considering the fact that the company’s new ad – featuring a monkey evolving into a man after having found a can of Dr. Pepper – has upset fundamentalist Christians every time someone doesn’t credit Jesus for everything in the Universe. The Facebook post is still generating discussion, with comments sitting somewhere in excess of 3k.
Much of the early discussion was dominated by a Christian troll by the name of Amy, who was filled with powerful gems of insight:
so all you people seem to think that moon has a gravity… have you been there, didn’t think so. just like your other theories. you were a human when you were born and you are still a human. Monkies [sic] stay monkies [sic] humans stay humans. evolution is same if I claimed that an apple will in time turn in to a pineapple, but in fact it will just rot. think about that
If anyone didn’t get it before, i will never again drink dr. pepper. in fact i will go shoplift some and pour it on the ground, take that atheists. i did like it before but this is just wrong. the children will grow up to be stupid if they’re surrounded by this kind of media.
You’ll be happy to know the vast majority of the comments are actually making fun of these idiots and their inability to grasp reality. The Internet is, after all, dominated by Godless heathens like yourself. So, if you’re looking for a laugh, go read some of these comments yourself.
Did I mention this Amy chick also has a crazy website I’ll be making fun of in my next post?
The Good Atheist Podcast: EP 217
This week, we have a hilarious show for you, as Ryan tries to answer the ‘teacher’s guide’ to the crockumentary God of Wonders. We also talk about the significance of Australopithecus sediba in the way we understand scientific discoveries.
/
RSS Feed
New fossil discovery makes my day
The difference between science and other supposed “types” of knowledge that make similar claims about the universe can be illustrated with this cool new discovery: a team of archaeologists working in South Africa have found a fossil of a possible ancestor. The physical attributes of Australopithecus sediba suggests that it may be a direct ancestor rather than an unsuccessful offshoot. This discovery could (and this is the important part here) change our understanding of our own past as a species.
This offers yet another opportunity for science to correct itself, to refine our understanding of the history of life on earth. That’s fucking exciting. That makes my day. It should make all of our days, but it doesn’t. For a significant portion of the American population, this discovery is either irrelevant, unimportant, or a threat. The need for people to feel important and relevant in an uncaring universe has blinded them from a deeper and much more interesting possibility: that our existence, while impressive to ourselves, is the result of the same laws of physics that are universal. If we exist long enough to contemplate the Cosmos, then we cannot be the only ones who have, are, or ever will. How more exciting is this than “Super Ape-in-the-Sky did it”?
Francis Collins thinks atheists improperly use science
I’ve never understood scientists who are also believers. Sure, you can argue that science is a way of understanding the natural world, and that God (by their own definition, of course) exists outside of these laws. This is the idea that both science and faith can co-exist peacefully. You may have heard of the term NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), first coined by Stephen J. Gould. It’s the rather incorrect assumption that somehow the two deal with entirely different realities.
Francis Collins is a head of the National Institute of Health, formerly the head of the US Human Genome Program. He’s also an evangelical Christian, convinced that there is no incompatibility between the belief in a Christian God and the Theory of Evolution. He also thinks that “angry atheists” like Steven Pinker are attempting to use the scientific theory to demonstrate its incompatibility with the notion of an all powerful creator God.
“angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head.” He expressed concern that prominent researchers suggesting that one can’t believe in evolution and believe in God, may be “causing a lot of people not familiar with science to change their assessments of it.”
Yeah, don’t you hate when people “hit you over the head” with reality? How dare we reject the idea of an improvable supernatural entity that leaves no evidence of its existence? Why can’t we all believe and stop ruining their good time?
Hilariously enough, Collins has actually rejected NOMA in the past, arguing that in many cases the two do overlap. And then the man wonders why we bother fighting against his irrational ideas…
Here’s the think about evolution and God: they aren’t compatible. If you agree that evolution is true, then you admit that the process is undirected, the result of chance mutations that give their genetic carriers a greater chance to leave offspring. It’s a process of gradual change influenced by the forces of nature, not the will of a deity. Sad believers like Ken Miller attempt to explain this inconvenient fact with the childish notion that the process was “directed” in some invisible way, but this only serves to show God as an incompetent fool who leads the majority of his creation to extinction.
Evolution explains how we came to be without the need for the added hypothesis of a creator. Any scientists who truly understands evolution and who still believes in God has done so only because the two are compartmentalized. I’m sure Collins can still do good science, but he still believes in two incompatible ideas, and no amount of “comfort” with is beliefs will change reality.
Idaho creationists want their own monument to ignorance
Hey Idaho, were you feeling left out of this whole evolution-creation “debate”? Are you tired of scientists telling you that the earth is 4.5 billion years old instead of only 6000? Well, then you should donate every spare dollar you have to the Northwest Science Museum. Although they have yet to even raise enough money for their pathetic displays, it certainly hasn’t affected their enthusiasm for this project. They want people to donate land, time, resources, anything to make their dream of making Americans less capable of properly understanding the natural world. Their “statements of faith” tell you everything you need to know about them:
No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation. Therefore, the earth is a young earth, perhaps about 6000 years old.
The various original life-forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
We are opposed to the one-sided presentation of evolutionary views in public schools, colleges, and the news media. One of the basic functions of the Museum is to disseminate the abundance of scientific evidence in support of the Biblical account of creation and young earth history.
Yeah, isn’t evolution so “one-sided”? When are scientists going to stop relying on evidence and start relying on a Bronze Age book of fairy tales to tell them about the world? Surely studying the Bible can give you valuable information about the world, like the fact that rather than curve space-time, the Earth rests on pillars. It says so in First Samuel 2:8. You can also forget about such silly things as Kepler’s Law of planetary motion, since First Corinthians 16:30 says that the Earth stands still. Man, life is so simple when you rely on the Bible for everything, isn’t it?
If these clowns get their way, they’ll eventually build a Science Education Center, which they claim will help raise the science scores of American children (which they hilariously admit is deteriorating). Yeah, it’s a real fucking mystery why kids in your country are getting dumber, especially when you have quality museums that teach “No apparent interpretation of evidence of any field can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record”. Well, they might run into a problem since the following scientific disciplines all conflict with the Bible:
Geology, Cosmology, Astronomy, Chemistry, Modern Germ Theory, Evolutionary Biology, Embryology, Paleontology, Epidemiology, Physics, Anthropology, etc.
Yep, the future scientific leaders of America are in good hands here! If you don’t believe me, check out their only “research” paper so far (this behemoth is over 4 pages, double-spaced), explaining how DNA is so complex only a magical entity could have created it!
Ben Stein is an idiot
Wow, he’s right: Evolution doesn’t explain how gravity works, and it certainly doesn’t explain the second law of thermodynamics. Did you also know Newton’s First Law (the velocity of a body is constant unless another force acts against it) doesn’t explain why Ben Stein thinks he understands what the fuck he’s talking about? It must mean the Theory has no real value. It’s much more logical to assume that God did everything slightly difficult to explain. Who wants to live in a world of quantum indeterminacy? If you’re Ben Stein, all you need to do is jam your fingers in your ears so tightly that it starts to effect blood-flow to your brain, and presto: no more pesky science that makes God look like an incompetent fool.
The Good Atheist Podcast: EP 207
Flat-Earthers invade TGA, Miss USA contestants have ‘opinions’ about evolution, and some Rabbis condemn a dog to death by stoning. Don’t miss out.
/
RSS Feed
Bad Creationism debating tactics obliterated
Are you an idiot who wants desperately to continue to believe in a supernatural entity despite no evidence to do so? Are you intimidated by science, and how it conflicts with your supernatural understanding of the world? Are you concerned evolution makes your Cosmogony seem infantile and basic by comparison? Then head on over to Creationtips.com*, where you can learn a whole slew of idiotic talking points, such as.
1. How did the Universe come about?
There is of course no scientific law or demonstrable process that would let something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear. [Jake’s Note: You’ll read this whole “there is no scientific law” rhetoric all the time on the site. Evidently these clowns have no real understanding of what scientific laws are all about.]
Translation: Something can’t come from nothing, therefore my Creator God who willed himself into existence did it.
In any case, this question is supposed to confuse non-believers who aren’t super familiar with astrophysics. How can a Universe come from nothing? Well, Laurence Krauss has some good answers to this question, but it’s still an argument I find quickly paints religionists into a corner. If it’s true you can’t get something from nothing, then why does this rule not apply to their Creator God?
2. How could living creatures come from Non-Life?
There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.
Translation: There are no provable mechanisms for life, therefore my improvable deity did it!
Creationists are always a little confused as to how non-living materials create living entities. While we cannot yet fully explain how the necessary proteins arranged themselves to create DNA, it’s important to remember this molecule is not “alive” in the same sense that we are. It’s simply a biological mechanism for replication, and there are other non-organic examples of this as well.
Any creationists using the word “DNA” is a fool; if they believe humans are separate from animals, they should choose a different molecule: this one suggests humans share a common ancestor with all animals. It’s a far cry from their Adam and Eve bullshit.
3. How could new genetic information arise?
The theory of evolution teaches that complex life-forms evolved from simple life-forms. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.
Translation: I’m confused about evolution, therefore God did it.
Creationists are always confused about how evolution works. They have to be, otherwise it kills their little delusion that Earth was spawned by an invisible deity. They always claim you can’t see evolution in action, even though you can with something as mundane as using anti-bacterial soap. It’s even clearly spelled out for you on the label: if they kill 99.9% of all bacteria, the 0.1% that survived have developed a greater resiliency to this particular soap. Over time, these traits make their way into the population and your soap becomes increasingly ineffectual as we slowly train bacterium to resist us through our germophobic habits. Tada!
More sophisticated creationists (Intelligent Design) admit this kind of evolution exists, but somehow these types of changes can’t possibly lead to different traits leading to separate species over long periods of time. Even if evolution were wrong, it would not make their magical-spontaneous-sky-man hypothesis any more correct.
…mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.
There’s a wonderful video explaining how a kind of “loss of information” was responsible for humans branching off into a separate species, and you need to check it out.
4. Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?
Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don’t show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches.
Translation: I don’t even understand the notion that human beings ARE apes!
This one makes me the saddest, because it reminds me we’re still a long ways away as a species from admitting what we are. You’d think the fabric of society would collapse like a balloon as soon as we all realized we are animals like any other. The fact that we are offended by the notion of being apes goes to show we have little appreciation for the truth, and even less appreciation for how extraordinarily fortunate we are to be alive.
As for debunking this claim the “fossil record keeps changing”, keep in mind the chance of actually finding human fossils is already a rarity (land species always leave less evidence of their existence, and we haven’t been around for long). Our entire collection of ancient hominid bones could fit in the back of a pickup truck, for God’s sake! But to say there’s no evidence we share a common ancestor with apes is simply a pious lie. The evidence is overwhelming (one of the proofs is in the video I mentioned before), and keep in mind so far, the best alternative explanation these creationists offer is the equivalent of magic. How are they so endlessly impressed with themselves?
*(Update: The site no longer exists)
Louisiana dummies shocked that kids are learning Evolution
Ah, creationism; no matter how you dress it up, it’s still a steaming pile of horse shit. Every year it’s the same thing: a group of ignorant and highly religious parents become upset their children are actually receiving an education as to how life adapts and changes over time, and their reaction is to try and insert their creationist materials (which they hilariously call “intelligent design”) into classrooms. Once they start doing that, it becomes necessary to get the courts involved, and school boards with small budgets spend huge sums of money in the ensuing legal battles (remember the Dover trial? It cost 2 million bucks, and I’m sure lots of schools would be dying for that kind of money).
Now while big states like Texas get all the attention, Louisiana has decided it too wants to join in on all the fun. A number of citizens, backed by the Louisiana Family Forum (hey look, another conservative org with the word “family” in it), are attacking the state’s biology textbooks because they are teaching “too much evolution”.
Darrell White also told the Advocate that the textbooks don’t comply with the anti-evolution law known as the “Louisiana Science Education Act,” which the Family Forum helped write and successfully lobbied for in 2008. The LSEA instructs educators to promote “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” It also allows teachers and school districts to use “supplemental textbooks,” which are just code words for creationist and pro-intelligent design materials.
The losers in this whole thing are the kids, who as a consequence of all this nonsense end up having a shitty education. While Americans continue to wrestle with the incompatibility of their religion and objective reality, the rest of the world is passing them by at the speed of light. It’s hard to imagine what influence all of this “debate” will have on these students as they enter the global marketplace, but it’s not likely to be very good. How can you survive in a knowledge-based economy when your citizens keep filling their heads with superstitious bullshit?
Glenn Beck is shockingly ignorant
don’t consider myself an expert on evolution; however, I’ve devoted a considerable amount of time studying the matter, if for no other reason than to try and understand humanity. The answers to some of our most puzzling questions become obvious once you realize we are nothing more than apes that have evolved over millions of years from a common ancestor to other primates. While our chimpanzee cousin’s “evolutionary focus” was more on climbing trees and eating fruit we went a different route, which led to our large brains, our upright posture, and a significant loss of hair.
The evidence of our ancestry is so strong you cannot find a serious scientist who refutes the fact we are, in fact, just another branch of the ape family. Despite all this, scientifically illiterate morons like Glenn Beck continue to refute the obvious. Their arguments are so weak and stupid that attempting to answer them seems like a waste of time:
“I don’t think we came from monkeys. I think that’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen a half monkey / half person yet. Did evolution just stop? Did all of a sudden, there’s no other species that is developing into half-human..”
“Other species developing into half-humans”. What exactly does Beck think evolution is all about? Does he think all species eventually develop into upright primates or something? Even someone vaguely familiar with evolution would never make such an infantile assumption.
Luckily for Glenn he’s not the only moron on the show; his idiot cohost brings up Piltdown man in an attempt to refute the scientific evidence of our ancestry, as though mentioning a hoax which was exposed in the 1950′s somehow means evolution is wrong. These morons don’t understand science is a process, and individual scientists are human beings who make mistakes, and occasionally try to defraud people (yes, sometimes people suck). Luckily, the scientific method demands evidence and applies intense scrutiny to any claim. With this error correcting mechanism built in, it’s usually only a matter of time before hoaxes are exposed.
Think of how science and religion contrast with the simple example of The Shroud of Turin. This pathetic relic has clearly been identified as a 14th century pious hoax (which matches the date of the appearance of this supposed relic), and yet the Catholic Church continues to try and assert it is indeed the cloth that was placed on the body of Jesus when he was buried. They do this because the item serves as pathetic “proof” their God existed, and that’s the level of scrutiny they are willing to apply. That’s the real difference between religion and science; while hard working men and women probe the very fabric of the Universe, pious morons like Glenn Beck continue to disbelieve the evidence simply to maintain a belief a bearded super being created us in “his” image.
Evolution is kicking our ass
While dummies are still trying to refute evolution (they may as well try to disprove gravity at this point), science marches on. The latest evidence of evolution at work isn’t exactly welcoming news for us humans, however:
A strain of African mosquito that carries the deadly malaria parasite is splitting into two species faster than expected, according to a new study. The finding helps explain why the insect can survive in environments spanning from humid rainforests to arid savannas.
A speciation is occurring in Anopheles gambiae, which is not exactly good news. The mosquito is adapting to live in more arid environments, which means it puts even more humans at risk of contracting malaria. The key, according to scientists, is to understand the ecology of these mosquitos in order to develop better control and prevention methods (notice how it’s quite impossible to stop it entirely).
This is why understanding evolution is important; species are always changing and adapting, and the conditions we live in are by no means permanent. Praying to an anthropomorphic God will not save us from deadly pathogens, viruses and pest outbreaks. Even understanding the process doesn’t mean we can stop it, but it sure is better than the alternative, isn’t it?
Why journalists put “evolution is wrong” in their headlines
I regularly read “The Guardian”. They normally have a pretty decent science coverage, but the latest article entitled “Why everything you know about evolution is wrong” outraged me enough I felt the need to talk about it. The article starts simply enough, referring to the burgeoning science of epigenetics, and how some researchers are finding genes that become expressed due to environmental factors can effect subsequent generations. So far so good. However, at one point in the article the author jumps completely off the deep-end and begins to suggest this now proves evolution by means of natural selection is under scrutiny, and natural selection might not be a real force at all. All of this stems from a book he read that seems to have convinced him in some way something fishy must be going on in the world of evolutionary biology.
The book in question is called “What Darwin Got Wrong“, and is written not by biologists (a good start, right?), but rather by a philosopher of the mind and a cognitive scientist. Their central argument is nothing more than a simple language trick: they claim in order for natural selection to do its “selecting for”, there has to be intentionality (meaning a kind of willpower to make the selection happen at all). If this sounds completely idiotic, it’s because these guys have no idea it isn’t nature “selecting” anything; species who have a reproductive advantage in their specific environment will have more offspring and suffer from less predation, and that it turns means their particular genes will be more abundant. So really, the only thing the two authors manage to do is try and attack the language framework of evolution (and fail miserably), and find their insight so brilliant they think they’ve disproved natural selection.
Now, as far as the motives behind journalists publishing such literary rot is concerned, it’s simply to gain recognition; rather than come up with novel ideas, it’s easier to tarnish or question the discoveries of people that are smarter than you. And because of the resistance of many Americans to accept his scientific contribution, Charles Darwin is the easiest target. You don’t see many journalists tackling the fallibility of the ideas of men like Einstein or Heisenberg in mainstream media; going up against these scientific geniuses is a Herculean effort in comparison, and not likely to generate much attention from anyone.
At the end of the day, journalists want their articles to be read, and with evolution still a hot button issue in the US, if the title of your article seems to suggest it’s wrong, you’ll get your audience. Even when that’s not the motivation, many journalists believe the truth in any story can only be discovered if you present both sides of the argument equally. This isn’t at all how a scientific truth is discovered at all (for instance, I don’t need to know about creationism to know anything about evolution); science is not a democracy, and nobody votes on whether a particular theory is the right one or not. It either works or it doesn’t, and evolution works. Until more journalists understand there really is no story here other than “more idiots undermine one of the most tested scientific theories in history”, this kind of shit will keep happening.
Cool summary of micro/macro-evolution
Here’s a great summary of the differences between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and why creationists like to confuse people by suggesting one exists and the other does not. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that if micro-evolution is true, over a long period of time, small changes in the genome would accumulate to eventually lead to an entirely new species. It’s only hard for them to believe this because their religious convictions assure them the magical sky man created everything as it is today. How can they simultaneously accept the mechanism of evolution (by admitting “micro-evolution is real) without understanding what it ultimately means? With a lot of intellectual dishonesty, that’s how!
Stephen Baldwin is an embarrassment to humanity
I hate reality shows, and I especially hate D-list celebrity ones. That doesn’t mean, however, that I don’t occasionally enjoy watching the train wreck of stupidity that often ensues, and this latest gem of ignorance comes from our old friend Stephen Baldwin. Stephen is a born again evangelical, a fact you can’t help but notice 5 seconds after meeting him. He’s as passionate about his religion as he is uneducated, and here we have him attempting to convince his celebrity buddies on Big Brother that evolution is false. Hey jackass, we don’t “descend” from apes; we ARE apes! As for chimpanzees (which are also apes and not monkeys), we shared an ancestor roughly 6 million years ago, which explains why we have some minor differences (we have roughly 96% of the same DNA in common). My little cousin knows this, and he’s just a kid. You might try reading a book that has facts instead of stories, idiot. You embarrass me and the rest of humanity with your stupidity.