I was given a copy of this particular edition of this christian teen's magazine and was appalled at what these folks are actually telling children. One thing I cannot stand is those who will further their own religio-political ideologies by manipulating children. Yes, these are "religious" people who LIE to children by willfully misrepresenting modern science. The modern world is built on science and every innovation that has improved the human condition has been by scientific breakthroughs and those being applied through engineering standards. The very fact you are reading this on the internet with a computer is a testament to science, engineering, and technology. Their tactics are no better than a political leader who uses fear to coerce or a used car salesman. They use a very old and effective method of advertising, FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. The publisher and contributors to this magazine are adherents to a fundamentalist version of Christianity and by and large do not represent it as a whole. My purpose with this blog post is not to denigrate someone's religion, but, on the other hand, nothing is beyond criticism; even religion. These are merely my opinions and are in no way absolute or definitive in their intentions. These are merely my own perceptions of their intent. I know in their minds they really believe they are fighting the "good" fight. Well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I did not attempt a blow-by-blow rebuttal of their claims because greater minds have already dealt with this sort of drivel. I have just written my thoughts when I read the articles I have re-posted below.
First off, Mr. Wells shows his lack of understanding or even apparent research in the highlighted portion saying that trilobites are the oldest fossils we know. This is factually wrong.
Stromatolites are the oldest known fossils known. How convenient this mistake was made considering the information that stromatolites may hold the key to determining one of the most important questions in evolutionary biology; how and when the tree of life branched into the three domains, the Bacteria, Archaea and Eucarya. http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Life/Stromatolites.htm What the hell is Mr. Wells talking about children being forced to read classic literature in English classes about evolution? Wrong. Why would you read about science in English class? This is just a ludicrous statement. For all intensive purposes, he is accusatory of the government school system being biased and not educating children properly. The fantastic job he postulates some are doing, are more along the lines of attempting to discredit 200 years of science and replacing it with his particular religious leaning. Creation "science" and it's sexed-up, repackaged version, intelligent design are NOT scientific, but religious in nature. This has been demonstrated numerous times by rebuttals of scientists dealing with evolution, and it was even ruled a religious notion in the Kitzmiller versus Dover court case in Pennsylvania. You lost. Mr. Wells apparently supports circumventing the United States Constitution and violating the Establishment Clause therein openly supporting only one religion to be taught in public school; his. Is it not a sin to break the law? I'm going to out on a limb here and guess that he believes (not thinks), incorrectly the United States was founded solely as a Christian nation. Wrong. The Establishment Clause created the separation of church and state which makes our government neutral in matters of religion. This benefits everyone. This country is for anyone whether your Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, non-religious, etc. Finally, yes it is a good idea to discuss areas in any theory where all the answers are not known, but not having all the answers does not completely discredit a working scientific theory. Atomic theory, gravitational theory, quantum theory are also incomplete. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A missing piece of evidence in evolutionary theory is not evidence for intelligent design either. Mr. Wells works with teenagers, who are still very impressionable and easily swayed. He peddles ignorance and blatant misinformation to manipulate children and further hampering them academically. Hopefully, most of the young adults he speaks to will be objective enough to take what he says and verify it. I am afraid some will go hook, line, and sinker because of this shyster.
Mr. Jackson emphatically states there, is "no solid evidence" for the generally accepted age of the Earth being approximately 4.6 billion years old. Wrong. Yet again in these young earth creationist arguments an unnamed source from Oxford University or some other prestigious institution is cited. Where is this source? Why didn't you place this in your tract? I cannot find anything of this supposed bell found in a coal bed in Pennsylvania dated 250 million years. The only places I could even find anything close to it were on conspiracy theory websites and other creationist sites and the place changed too depending on the site. Something is indeed wrong here, Mr. Jackson. "The rate of radioactive decay can change depending on certain conditions." Wrong. This demonstrates Mr. Jackson's utter lack of foundation in atomic theory. Also, radiometric dating is the correct term not "evolutionary clocks". Mr. Jackson's attempts to discredit the way in which fossils and rocks are dated are laughable and he uses it to prop up his house of cards; young earth creationism. "Lead can enter a rock from an outside source." Wrong. If it is already in a crystalline form and solid like a rock, lead doesn't just magically show up inside the rock unlike his belief concerning the emergence of life on Earth. What false and intimidating theories of modern science? Why is he timid of knowledge? Mr. Jackson appears to be a biblical literalist, it seems, and takes everything for what it says exactly; verbatim without any historical, cultural or literary context. The earth must be flat and held up by four pillars and we should stone people to death who commit adultery? A faith based on such literalism is weak. Acceptance of anything outside of this narrow point of view could utterly destroy Mr. Jackson's belief structure. This is why he must vehemently oppose anything based in reality and contradictory to what his religion tells him.
Mr. Palmer in this article levies that common descent lowers human beings to level of slugs, rats, snakes, and apes. Human beings, as a basic description, are bipedal, omnivorous, and possibly semi-aquatic primates. His assertion really here is emotional and plays off the human bias of anthropocentrism; our own over inflated sense self-importance in the Universe. His other important point made is that if you find evolution scientific, you can't be a Christian (in so many words), you're life will be hopeless, you will be licentious and avaricious, and could lead to harmful or murderous activities. Wrong. His argument is completely non-sequitur. Some could accuse religion of being anti-intellectual, manipulative, power hungry, and has caused more human conflict than any other reason in the history of mankind. Religion is not a prerequisite to being a good person or altruistic either. Bill Gates and his wife Melinda each co-chair the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This foundation is one of the largest, transparent charitable foundations today and is lead by someone who is a Catholic and non-religious.
This one article is just disgusting. Nothing, but one long ad hominem attack on Charles Darwin. Darwin never wanted to be a physician, but tried anyways to please his father. Dr. Harrub actually fucking used the death of someone's ten-year old daughter as a means to personally attack them. Regardless of them being dead, this is despicable. Darwin did hold a degree in divinity, but a PhD is not necessary to be a brilliant scientist. Nor, will a PhD make Dr. Harrub a brilliant scientist. In my opinion, he uses his PhD as a means of gaining himself more credibility amongst those whom he spreads this propaganda. He erroneously created the false dichotomy that one cannot subscribe to evolution being scientifically valid and be a Christian. Wrong. This magazine is geared toward young adults who are still quite impressionable. This dichotomy created is manipulative. Goebells would be proud. He utterly misrepresents what modern science states concerning evolution and co-related fields such as genetics, molecular biology, nanoscience, astrophysics, et al; therefore he is either being willfully ignorant or a liar.
These are two letters from children regarding their views on evolution. The quotation from Dr. Michael Behe, a leading intelligent design apologist, makes me think that children really didn't write these articles above. These letters are still the same creationist drivel I have seen a million times like the confusion in the colloquial meaning of "theory" and the scientific definition of the word "theory". These letters are designed to create a bandwagon effect on the readers of this magazine; children. Anyone a little disgusted with these folks yet?
This is a cutesy anecdote by Mr. Blaine Kelly. I am happy to hear that his wife's MRSA was successfully treated and infer that she is doing well these days. I hope he thanks the scientists who developed new antibiotics to treat MRSA by the application of molecular biology and it's cornerstone; evolutionary theory. MRSA is a prime example of natural selection, cross gene adaption, etc! How can you not see this, Mr. Kelly? As he said, he is no scientist and it's apparent as his wife's nose once was. Once again, the tired argument to assail evolutionary theory is it cannot explain the origin of life. He is correct. Evolution does not explain the origin, the beginning of life here on Earth. The origin of life is beyond the constraints of the theory therefore this is not even a part of the theory. I question if Mr. Kelly has even read more than the cover of "On the Origin of Species". This is just another example of how these religious fundamentalists confuse, manipulate, and lie to further their aims by grossly misrepresenting science. A simple explanation: Evolution explains how species change to suit their environment through natural selection. It never deals with the origin of life. Given enough time scale, environmental changes, and mutations, a new species can arise. Finally to quote Mr Kelly, "Some mistake God's creative hand for evolution…" So God gave Mr. Kelly's wife MRSA? I am sorry he is so petty to him and his kin. Also, it doesn't matter how many times or how loud you keep saying something; it doesn't make it even remotely correct.
"Most of the areas of science were discovered by famous scientists who not only believed in the God of the Bible, but also defended God's Word against the agnostics of their day. The majority of people on earth have always denied God's Word or compromised on its teachings. Only about 30 percent of today's world claims to believe in Christianity. Yet over 90 percent of all technological breakthroughs that have benefited humanity have come from this 30 percent."
Please state your source. The innovations of the modern world were almost exclusively from Christians? This is the most arrogant statement thus far. Albert Einstein was an agnostic Jew. Western Europe has had the most technological advancements in recent history and most of it is predominately Christian. Correlation does not imply causation. Christianity, in of itself, did not create the modern world, but science and engineers did who just might happen to profess a belief in Christianity. Also, what about the fact that Muslims invented algebra? In fact the word "algebra" is an Anglicization of the Arabic word, al-jabr, الجبر. I find this particular quote to be of dubious validity.
Mr. Longley's article in this magazine is not bad I suppose. I mean there is nothing wrong with being somewhat awestruck at the complication and intricacies of life. However, just because things are neat or complicated and you're amazed as to how it all happened, the default answer is not God. This whole argument here is an example of the logical fallacy for the argument of ignorance which basically says, "I don't understand how this can happen therefore it must be this" 
No comments:
Post a Comment