Skip to main content

View Diary: Book Review: The Evolution of Everything (159 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the idea of evolution is simple, but . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    . . . sadly, in my near-30 years of creationist-fighting, I have never yet encountered anyone, anywhere, who both rejected evolution and understood it.


    •  Ever heard of Cynognathus? (0+ / 0-)

      How about Seymouria? I am sure you have heard about Archaeopteryx and Australopithecus.
      Creationists have been known to speak of a total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

      •  I sure have (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But alas, asking creationists about therapsids, or about Archaeopteryx, or about Ambulocetus, or about Australopithecus, or about Tiktaalik, usually doesn't work-- they can just regurgitate whatever some nutter has posted on a creationist crapsite or fundamentalist religious tract about it.

        Far better to ask them about fossil transitionals that they never heard of at all, like Triadobatrachus or Haasiophis or Diarthrognathus or Prorastamus. That way they'll have to answer on their own--which they are, scientifically and constitutionally, utterly unable to do.  ;)

        •  Don't you know that every one found... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Jusst opens two more gaps, one on either side? So the more transitional forms found, the more are needed.

          Think of it as the creationist's version of Zeno's paradox.

        •  3rd parties (0+ / 0-)

          No, I don't expect a committed creationist to be influenced by arguments. My aim would be to influence 3rd parties listening to the discussion who are not so committed.

          •  in general, arguing science is always a waste of (0+ / 0-)

            time. Most people simply don't care about it, don't know anything about it, and don't understand it anyway.

            And anyway, at its root, the creation/evolution fight simply is not about science.  Creationism is a political movement with political goals, and the best way to beat it is by focusing on their political aims--which virtually no one in the US supports.  The creationists are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, and they are Taliban-wanna-be's--nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

            Big long "debates" over science usually help the creationists more than they help us.  They give the creationists an air of legitimacy that they don't deserve, by leaving the impression that there actually IS an authentic scientific debate, with two "sides".  There isn't. Creationists themselves want desperately to focus the entire fight on a "scientific debate", so they don't have to defend their idiotic political agenda that nobody supports.

            It's one reason why too many scientists, alas, make very poor creationist-fighters.

            But fortunately for us, the entire Christian fundamentalist political movement is now dead as a mackerel--even the Repug Party no longer gives them the time of day. The "Culture Wars" are pretty much over.

            •  Different approaches (0+ / 0-)
              You will have your approach and I will have mine.
              I have had the sciences (chemistry, biochemistry, evolutionary biology) as hobbies since the age of 7. I do want to see evolution presented better in the public schools.
              As far as culture wars, it remains to be seen whether repeal of dadt will pass this Congress or be waylaid by a filibuster or a veto of HR 5136 over an unrelated issue. The November election also remains to be seen.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site