No, they can't

Yet another person thinks evolution and creationism can live side-by-side.

The image of the Virgin Mary is reported to have been seen on a tree stump in the village of Rathkeale, and thousands of people have flocked there. And yes, this is quite absurd.

But is it more preposterous to believe that that piece of timber, and the willow tree from which it came, and the eye that beheld the wood, arrived in this world entirely by accident?

For in this, the 150th anniversary of the publication of ‘The Origin of Species’, that is what we’ve been endlessly told this year.

Before Darwinian dogmatists sneer the words ‘intelligent design’ and ‘creationism’, let me declare that I embrace neither concept. But nor do I reject them.

There it is. I’ve been talking about it for awhile now, and here’s a prime example. It’s a New Creationist

I’ve been reading up on this subject recently, especially Ernst Mayr, Dawkins and Darwin, and what strikes me most is the sheer act of Darwinian faith which is required for us to accept that natural selection was the prime engine that conjured the vast complexity of modern life from its birthplace in the methanogenic oceans of the pre-Cambrian.

It actually doesn’t take any faith whatsoever. There is ample evidence for evolution, and specifically for natural selection. The only way the author of this piece would think it took faith to accept evolution would be if he was really a sneaky, coy creationist.

Now life as we know it depends on proteins. But even a relatively simple molecule such as insulin, consists of 51 conjoined amino-acids, with a molecular weight of 5808: nearly 6,000 times the weight of a hydrogen atom. And an average living cell contains 100 million protein molecules, involving perhaps 20,000 varieties of protein.

Do you remember those problems back in grammar school where you’d need to pick out the irrelevant part? Suzy and Tom went to the store at 7 in the morning. Tom got 2 packs of gum and a soda. They both returned at 4:30 later that day. For how long were Suzy and Tom gone? It isn’t important that Tom bought anything. No one cares. So in turn, one wonders why the author told us the weight of insulin, not to mention that weight versus a particular atom. Maybe he’s trying to compare complexity. If so, he failed.

Moreover, there are several hundred thousand types of protein, all of them impossibly complex. How were these made by accident? To say that such order is implicit in all of nature — as some scientists do — is begging the question, the equivalent of saying matter is intrinsic to materials.

There’s the problem. This guy thinks it was all “by accident”. He also seems to think, as creationists commonly do, that complex molecules have always existed in the form in which we see them. That is not the case. Evolution is a slow, gradual process. Until creationists understand that – and they usually willfully do not – no progress can be made with these people.

This logically means that there must have been many competing proto-life forms. Just one — apparently the one that depends upon DNA — survived. But how did the dear old double helix come into existence? For DNA doesn’t function at all unless complete. It’s either the final, impossibly complex but useful article, or it’s incomplete and utterly useless. So, no simple evolution here.

Competing lifeforms would not last long in an environment where other lifeforms already exist. That’s one reason we don’t see life spontaneously come into existence – the formation of any molecules will be quickly used up by existing life.

This guy goes on to state the common creationist idea that life must exist complexly immediately upon its inception. Again, no. Interestingly, this all seems like a non-sequitur: many life forms should exist, but only one does, so how did it come into existence, it couldn’t because it’s complex. Weird.

Human-triggered speciation has never occurred, despite separations of thousands of years. The dingo of the Australian desert is five millennia removed from the Arctic wolf; yet they can still interbreed. Similarly, Northern Dancer could have bred with a Connemara.

Dogs? Or all this?

Billions and…googols

Thought of the day

Baseball is a better sport, but hockey is often more exciting.

Thought of the day

PZ Myers is the everyday voice of the atheist community. Richard Dawkins is the overarching tone-setter.

Only a matter of time

Teachers in Florida can now officially use the word “evolution”.

For the first time, teachers can say it, they are now being taught how to handle this controversial subject.

The word evolution appears in student’s textbooks.

But when teachers get to that chapter, they say it’s always been a juggling act — how to teach evolution, without actually using the word.

Florida science teaching standards didn’t allow the word “evolution” to be used.

Instead teachers had to say the phrase, “biological change over time.”

But that’s about to change.

It’s almost like the standards are, dare I say it…evolving. Hardy-har.

It’s sad that Florida is often so backward. They vote for the Bush’s, they ban same-sex marriage out of weird culturally-based belief systems that have no bearing on reality, they refuse to acknowledge a simple word…it’s ludicrous. It’s only a matter of time until this state progresses to something respectable. Not that it’s an anomaly. Plenty of other U.S. states have no clue how to behave like civilized beings. But regardless, time washes away bigotry – facts tend to get in the way. It’s just all happening very slowly. Really, though, New England and especially Europe can’t stay socially ahead of the majority of the U.S. forever.

“One of the things we can now discuss is human evolution. Which has been a very taboo topic in the past. Now as science teachers, we’re excited,” explained teacher Kristy Chiodo.

Chiodo got it mostly right. The only problem is that, unfortunately, it isn’t only in the past that people have had problems with human evolution. From high-quality biologists like Ken Miller to good organizations like the National Zoo, human evolution is treated as a subject which needs to be approached very, very carefully. Sometimes (such as with Miller), superfluous exceptions and qualifications are randomly inserted. People certainly still have big issues with human evolution. But ultimately, we’re just one line of “Great Apes”. God may exist, but probably doesn’t. And if he does, then there’s no indication of such. Get over it and let’s get on with the science; stop letting your god interfere with quality educations.

And finally…

Subjects that are not science, like creationism, will not be taught in schools.

Nice jab.

Thought of the day

Bob Emrich

Bob Emrich is a major bigot and a danger to the well-being of Maine and the good reputation of Maine. Of course, he is one of the hateful Christians seeking to invade the secular nature of Maine law to deny people the right to marry on the basis of gender. He also says dumb things like this.

State voters have repeatedly defined marriage as between a man and a woman when given the opportunity, with the latest vote in California, said Emrich, founder of Maine Jeremiah Project, which aims to get people of faith involved in setting public policy.

“Without exception, they’ve always voted to protect the traditional definition of marriage,” Emrich said.

And for a long time, so did the South. After all, the “traditional definition of marriage” for a very long time was that interracial unions were unholy and thus not allowed. Emrich is presenting a plainly dumb argument. “Well, we’ve been doing it for so long!”

I’m tired of parsing words or dilly-dallying around the issue. These people are fucking stupid. They have the intelligence of a glop of mud. These huge bigots (not that small bigots are okay) find homosexuality icky and/or they’re uncomfortable with their own sexuality. Often, their sexuality is repressed (see priests). They have immature views on what sex is, what its purpose is, what it means, and they are unable to make universal appeals which support any of the dogmatic inanity they embrace. Why do we listen to these fools?

These don't even look real

These don’t even look real

Thought of the day

Is there more beauty in the process or the result?

I’ve had this debate with a friend, and he believes its the result. I tend to disagree. When I stand atop Little Spencer mountain somewhere off in western Maine and I overlook the huge, flat swath of land and lakes between the mountain ranges, I cannot help but imagine the massive process of massive glaciers slowly navigating their destructive and forming ways through everything to sculpt what I now see. Just consider it. It took literally billions of years for that part of the earth to come together as I see it – and it will only stay that way for a brief moment.

I appreciate such gravity.