The theory of Evolution, just like the theory of Gravity, is as accepted in the scientific community as any other scientific theory you care to name.
Both are based on years of careful research, observation and experiment.
Every new discovery in every related field serves only to further confirm and reinforce them.
There is no question that we have evolved into the creatures we are today, just as there is no possibility that gravity will spontaneously fail and send us all floating off into space.
To some the theory of Evolution stands alone, because unlike the theory of Gravity it stands in opposition to their chosen religious belief.
These same people will happily use a cell phone, eat refrigerated food and blog about their hatred of Evolution on the internet, and all the while fail to appreciate that each of these things is the end result of a scientific theory just as strong as the theory they reject as nonsense.
I was moved to make this point recently over at the blog Atheism Analyzed, where there was a silly article saying that because two scientific papers didn’t explicitly mention evolution, it’s obviously not all that important.
Thus was my response:
Hi Stan. Great point.
It's exactly like that ridiculous theory of gravity.
That's revered by scientists as well, with very little in the way of theoretical evidence to support it.
Take an example: there's a new building going up near where I work. I saw the plans, and gravity wasn't mentioned once. Not once!
And yet this building is apparently going to sit on the ground!
Surely such a thing is absolutely dependent on this 'theory of gravity', but it wasn't even mentioned!
There was no mention of gravitational forces, no mention of the inverse square law, and not a single reference to the quantum effects of gravity waves.
This clearly shows that the whole 'theory of gravity' is nonsense.
I'm so glad you've made this important point, Stan. The sooner we stop revering this silly 'theory of gravity' the better off we'll all be.
8 comments:
Matthew... so sarcastic, I think your wife is clearly a bad influence.
Oh, so you think it was me? Nice suggestion Shan, very nice. No more french esoteric pop for you. . .
maybe I should take Milhouse for a month for punshiment? Kippen - should we just get this over with and arrange an actual christian smack down for you? You know you want it x
There's nothing like a good "reductio ad absurdum". Well, nothing except a good, reasoned argument.
and someone who took a first year philosophy course. . .nice work anonymous. Didn't make to second yr and critical thinking then? Too busy in church?
Kate! You're so mean! And pointless. There's nothing wrong in my pointing out Matt's choice of a logical fallacy in lieu of something more worthwhile. If nobody did, he'd get all sloppy and flaccid, and we can't have that. He's always been such an upright character.
And really, having a stab at me by suggesting I might be a church-goer? I hadn't picked you for a bigot, but there you are.
Incidentally, I made it through four years of Philosophy and went on to teach it :)
Des, Des, Des.
That's what you get for being Anonymous.
A reasoned argument? With people who are happy to deny scientific basics?
Unfortunately such things tend to be a waste of time.
Besides, if you look at Stan's response to this comment, even this level of argument is apparently beyond him.
Hey Derek, If you actually knew me you'd know that I am only bigoted against people who use Philosophy degrees as a way to justify their intellect . . .
Hi Matt, what a fun blog! Nice work, I could never make a blog this polished :)
And Hi Kate! So you're saying you are, in fact, a bigot? Ok, that's cool. I wasn't using my Phiosophy degree to justify my intellect, but I did use my knowledge of logical fallacy to identify a fallcy in use. My intellect doesn't require justification, thankfully.
I won't be posting anonymously any more, consider the first post an aberration.
Post a Comment