About Me

Name: Jack Fisher
Email: slickboy44@fastmail.fm Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Objective Religions Studies
Reason Resources
Debunking Creationisms

Humanity's Natural Altruism (No Deity Need Apply)

Posted by Jack Fisher on Saturday, December 12, 2009 10:42:26 AM
It is an age-old debate in philosophy. Is mankind naturally good or naturally bad? Philosophers and theologians have made their respective cases throughout history. Some traditions such as ancient Chinese philosophies in Confucianism and Taoism assert that man is naturally good. They use the example of a child drowning in a well and how man is naturally inclined to help that child. Other traditions, like the Judeo-Christian philosophy, argues that mankind is naturally bad. If given the opportunity to be greedy, malicious, or spiteful most people will give in and do what is bad before doing what is right. It is not an easy debate to resolve because there are so many cases throughout history that favor both. There are cases of tremendous altruism, the most famous being the soldier who dives on a grenade to save the lives of his squad. There are also cases of tremendous atrocity, most notably the bloody reign of tyrants like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Caligula. It's hard to assert which state is dominant because everybody is different and there are personality and environmental factors to consider. But the question remains. Is man in his basic essance inclined to altruism or selfishness?

Philosophy can debate this, but science is shedding new light on the subject. Since the study of evolution began, it has been popular to assert that it is a selfish process highlighted by the mantra of 'survival of the fittest.' Creationists and religious zealots have condemned this method for decades. However, that mantra may be wrong and a new concept known as 'survival of the kindest' is taking hold.

Charles Darwin himself once stated that sympathy is mankind's strongest instinct. In an evolutionary context, it makes sense for man to be both selfish and altruistic. To be selfish is to ensure one's own survival, which is paramount to any species. To be altruistic is to foster cooperation, communication, and group cohesion that is equally important in an constantly changing environment. Mankind is not like other species in that an individual is strong enough to evade any predator and capture any prey, but as a group mankind functions in a way that favors the survival of not just the individual but the entire species.

A good way to picture this is to go back to the hunger/gatherer days. If an individual was selfish and malicious, he would not get much help from his peers. He would have to fend for himself, finding his own food and fight to procure his own mate. If at any point he should face danger or be unable to secure food for himself, there would be no one to help him and he would not survive. If this individual worked in a team, sacrificing selfishness in favor of group harmony he is better able to get the resources he needs to survive. If he faces those same dangers, there are mechanisms to help him. This makes getting food and securing mates much easier and these traits would be favored by natural selection. So in the grand scheme of evolution, mankind has been bred to be altruistic.

Contrast this with religious subversions that assert mankind needs a deity of some kind to watch over him and threaten him with divine retribution in order for them to be good. Some even argue there must be a threat of damnation, a hell or an underworld where the spirit suffers for their transgressions, and if there wasn't then man would naturally indulge in greed, violence, and lust. Whether it's through a deity or a threat of suffering after death, one of religion's most powerful recruiting tools is creating a supernatural judge to keep people in line. But is that judge really necessary? Aren't mankind's collective instincts enough? There appears to be evidence that no deity is needed.

Below is an article highlighting a study that shows this and sheds new light on human altruism without any need for gods and spirits of any kind.

ScienceDaily: New Studies Into Human Altruism

ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2009) — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.

In contrast to "every man for himself" interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Dacher Keltner, a UC Berkeley psychologist and author of "Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life," and his fellow social scientists are building the case that humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing, altruistic and compassionate traits.

They call it "survival of the kindest."

"Because of our very vulnerable offspring, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of others," said Keltner, co-director of UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. "Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate. As Darwin long ago surmised, sympathy is our strongest instinct."

Empathy in our genes

Keltner's team is looking into how the human capacity to care and cooperate is wired into particular regions of the brain and nervous system. One recent study found compelling evidence that many of us are genetically predisposed to be empathetic.

The study, led by UC Berkeley graduate student Laura Saslow and Sarina Rodrigues of Oregon State University, found that people with a particular variation of the oxytocin gene receptor are more adept at reading the emotional state of others, and get less stressed out under tense circumstances.

Informally known as the "cuddle hormone," oxytocin is secreted into the bloodstream and the brain, where it promotes social interaction, nurturing and romantic love, among other functions.

"The tendency to be more empathetic may be influenced by a single gene," Rodrigues said.

The more you give, the more respect you get

While studies show that bonding and making social connections can make for a healthier, more meaningful life, the larger question some UC Berkeley researchers are asking is, "How do these traits ensure our survival and raise our status among our peers?"

One answer, according to UC Berkeley social psychologist and sociologist Robb Willer is that the more generous we are, the more respect and influence we wield. In one recent study, Willer and his team gave participants each a modest amount of cash and directed them to play games of varying complexity that would benefit the "public good." The results, published in the journal American Sociological Review, showed that participants who acted more generously received more gifts, respect and cooperation from their peers and wielded more influence over them.

"The findings suggest that anyone who acts only in his or her narrow self-interest will be shunned, disrespected, even hated," Willer said. "But those who behave generously with others are held in high esteem by their peers and thus rise in status."

"Given how much is to be gained through generosity, social scientists increasingly wonder less why people are ever generous and more why they are ever selfish," he added.

Cultivating the greater good

Such results validate the findings of such "positive psychology" pioneers as Martin Seligman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose research in the early 1990s shifted away from mental illness and dysfunction, delving instead into the mysteries of human resilience and optimism.

While much of the positive psychology being studied around the nation is focused on personal fulfillment and happiness, UC Berkeley researchers have narrowed their investigation into how it contributes to the greater societal good.

One outcome is the campus's Greater Good Science Center, a West Coast magnet for research on gratitude, compassion, altruism, awe and positive parenting, whose benefactors include the Metanexus Institute, Tom and Ruth Ann Hornaday and the Quality of Life Foundation.

Christine Carter, executive director of the Greater Good Science Center, is creator of the "Science for Raising Happy Kids" Web site, whose goal, among other things, is to assist in and promote the rearing of "emotionally literate" children. Carter translates rigorous research into practical parenting advice. She says many parents are turning away from materialistic or competitive activities, and rethinking what will bring their families true happiness and well-being.

"I've found that parents who start consciously cultivating gratitude and generosity in their children quickly see how much happier and more resilient their children become," said Carter, author of "Raising Happiness: 10 Simple Steps for More Joyful Kids and Happier Parents" which will be in bookstores in February 2010. "What is often surprising to parents is how much happier they themselves also become."

The sympathetic touch

As for college-goers, UC Berkeley psychologist Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton has found that cross-racial and cross-ethnic friendships can improve the social and academic experience on campuses. In one set of findings, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, he found that the cortisol levels of both white and Latino students dropped as they got to know each over a series of one-on-one get-togethers. Cortisol is a hormone triggered by stress and anxiety.

Meanwhile, in their investigation of the neurobiological roots of positive emotions, Keltner and his team are zeroing in on the aforementioned oxytocin as well as the vagus nerve, a uniquely mammalian system that connects to all the body's organs and regulates heart rate and breathing.

Both the vagus nerve and oxytocin play a role in communicating and calming. In one UC Berkeley study, for example, two people separated by a barrier took turns trying to communicate emotions to one another by touching one other through a hole in the barrier. For the most part, participants were able to successfully communicate sympathy, love and gratitude and even assuage major anxiety.

Researchers were able to see from activity in the threat response region of the brain that many of the female participants grew anxious as they waited to be touched. However, as soon as they felt a sympathetic touch, the vagus nerve was activated and oxytocin was released, calming them immediately.

"Sympathy is indeed wired into our brains and bodies; and it spreads from one person to another through touch," Keltner said.

The same goes for smaller mammals. UC Berkeley psychologist Darlene Francis and Michael Meaney, a professor of biological psychiatry and neurology at McGill University, found that rat pups whose mothers licked, groomed and generally nurtured them showed reduced levels of stress hormones, including cortisol, and had generally more robust immune systems.

Overall, these and other findings at UC Berkeley challenge the assumption that nice guys finish last, and instead support the hypothesis that humans, if adequately nurtured and supported, tend to err on the side of compassion.

"This new science of altruism and the physiological underpinnings of compassion is finally catching up with Darwin's observations nearly 130 years ago, that sympathy is our strongest instinct," Keltner said.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Darwin vs. Jean Baptiste Lemarck

Posted by Jack Fisher on Sunday, July 05, 2009 6:34:31 PM
When discussing the debate over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, many misguided moral crusaders will cry fowl by claiming schools and universities are not hearing out alternative views. The most common alternative view they push is creationism/intelligent design (they're really the same thing). But these religiously motivated theories had been disproven long ago because they could never hold up under peer review and could not explain anywhere near the phenomenon that evolution explained. Since it is drawn from the annuls of bronze age mythology, it can't be tested or verified. It can't even be taken seriously. Only evolution has been able to explain the vast biodiversity of life on Earth. That is why no alternative is taught. But that doesn't mean there weren't any.

One alternative that most religious zealots never even mention is the evolutionary theory of Jean Baptiste Lemarck. His theory, which is similar to Darwin's, hypothesized that individuals of a species could gain attributes in their lifetime that would favor their survivability and hence pass them to their offspring. He called this 'aquired characteristics.' For example, if a man worked as a blacksmith most of his life and developed big, strong arms then under Lemarck's theory he would pass the trait of big strong arms to his offspring.

History of Jean Baptiste Lemarck (1744-1829)

This theory, which came before Darwin, was tested by science and eventually disproven by Mendal genetics. Darwin later got it right when he hypothesized that populations evolved, but not individuals. Lemarck was discredited, which is part of why he is rarely mentioned in science today. But what also goes unnoticed is how his work would later influence the debate over evolution.

One of the major arguments anti-evolution crusaders often make is that evolution is a slippery slope. Teaching it leads to some kind of degradation of morality. Their favorite tactics is to associate it with the likes of Hitler and Stalin, claiming they were fervent evolutionary supporters. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Stalin, who used many cruel reasons to justify his slaughter, was NOT a supporter of evolution. He and many others in the communist party believed in Lemarck. Soviet psuedo-scientist Tromfim Lysenko denounced evolution and Mendelian genetics as a capitalist myth. Stalin took this and in his propaganda promoted Lemarck, believing that using acquired characteristics and the proper conditioning of individuals in their totalitarian state they could create a new race he called homo soviticus (the ideal communist). Those that actually pushed evolution or 'Darwinism' as they called it were sent to the gulags. These ideas were later adopted by another Lemarck supporter, Mao Zedong for the same reason. So those that say they were ardent Darwinists do not check their facts.

Lemarck and Communism

Lysenkoism and Stalinist Russia

Hitler was another tyrant who liked the appeal of Lemarck's work. It fell much more in line with his radical ideology on racial superiority. Many erroneously say he favored Social Darwinism (a perversion of real evolution anyhow), but his ideas of conditioning his people and exterminating undesireables is much more in line with Lemarck.

Hitler and Lemarck

Now just because these tyrants favored Lemarck does not mean Lemarck deserves to be associated with them. It just shows that those attempting to discredit Darwin and evolution are not checking their facts. Even if evolution were used as justification by madmen and despots, that wouldn't make it any less true. But it isn't and it's ridiculuous to assert otherwise by linking it to undesirable figures in history. Lemarck like creationism/intelligent design have both been disproven by science. That is why evolution is accepted.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dishonestly Discrediting Darwin

Posted by Jack Fisher on Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:10:50 PM
In the decades since Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution, critics and zealots alike have been looking for any way to discredit it. Recently, Townhall's own Pat Buchanan entered the frey as one who makes the age-old appeal to conspiracy.
In this article Buchanan mentions Thomas Huxley, a contemporary of Darwin and is quoted as saying "as "Darwin's bulldog," Huxley would himself engage in intrigue, deceit and intellectual property theft to make his master's theory gospel truth in Great Britain."  This kind of appeal tries to discredit something by claiming it was promoted through deceit, ignoring the actual substance of the theory itself. It ignores the actual merits of the theory, in other words, the evidence. Darwin had the evidence. Men like Huxley just tried to market it. But no matter how he pushed it, Huxley had no bearing on the validity of Darwin's theory. It was vindicated by evidence, not good PR. And it has continued to be vindicated in the decades since.
 
When appeals to conspiracy don't work, men like Buchanan will try the old slippery slope argument. He references Marx and Hitler, two of the most despised figures in the 20th century and associates them with Darwin. This 'fraud by association' is another dishonest tactic that has the same problem as the appeal to conspiracy. It does not address the evidence. It is basically an ad hominum attack. It reasons that if A is bad and B is associated with A then B must be bad. It has no bearing on the validity of a theory either. It does not matter who formulated it or what they believed or didn't believe. What matters is the evidence. So whether Darwin was an agnostic, a Christian, or a Muslim, it doesn't matter. The evidence is what matters.
 
In addition, the association between Darwin, Hitler, and Communism is sketchy at best and non-existant at worst. In Hitler's own book, Mien Kamf, he redicules Darwin's work and makes many of the same arguments creationists use today. If he had any favoring of evolution, it wasn't Darwin. It was the evolution proposed of Jean-Baptiste Lemarck, who came before Darwin and proposed a kind of evolution where variation could emerge in a single individual within a single generation. But Lemarck turned out to be wrong. Darwin proved that populations evolve, not individuals. Lemarck appealed to Hitler and Stalin because it justifed the idea of propogating physically, racially, and nationally superior humans. It meant if they could make the citizens of their country into an ideal, they would evolve above the rest of humanity. As Darwin later proved, that is not how evolution works.
 
Regardless of what one thinks about Darwin and who he associated with, his theory has stood the test of time for one reason: evidence. Since his theory was first proposed, mountains of evidence have emerged to support evolution. This evidence includes verifiable observations in palentology, biology, biochemistry, taxonomy, comparative morphology, psychology, and genetics. Some like Buchanan would argue that scientists view it through a bias perspective, but this completely ignores the fact that no viable alternative has been put forth by creationists or intelligent design proponents that better explains what is observed. The evidence fits evolution. It also completely ignores the nature of evidence. Because even from the most bias perspective, evidence cannot be made into something it is not. Evidence stands on its own merits and what is drawn from it cannot be skewed without ignoring reason and logic, which in science always gets trumped by the process of peer review.
 
So for people like Buchanan who resort to these dishonest criticisms, they are hurting their own credibility. If they want to discredit Darwin, do what he did and use evidence rather than blatant personal attacks. Science is not the study of personalities it's the study of the natural world. The merits of an individual scientist do not matter at the end of the day. Only the evidence matters. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Teaching Ignorance in the Face of Knowledge

Posted by Jack Fisher on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:40:01 PM
Recently the Washington Post did a report on David DeWitt, a teacher from Liberty University, a school with a rich tradition of zealous religious teachings that was founded by a zealous religious man named Jerry Fawell. DeWitt teaches 'biology' at this school and took his students on a trip to the Smithsonian Institute, where his faith base psudo-science came head-to-head with real science.
 
 
The purpose of this visit, according to DeWitt, is to strengthen his students' belief in the strict biblical view of history. Translation: he wants to ridicule certain aspects of science deemed 'threatening' by his fellow religious ideologues and replace knowledge with dogma and irrational beliefs. It is a great example of a real paradox. A man parading around as a proponent of science is pushing his irrational beliefs on students in a place that champions ration and debases superstitious dogma. There is no less appropriate place for a committed creationist.
 
"There's nothing balanced here. It's completely, 100 percent evolution-based," said DeWitt.
 
Well of course it is! That's because evolution is science and creationism is nonsenical, incoherent, irrational belief that has been debunked, disproved, and flat out rejected by decades of scientific and academic inquiry. Nobody will ever find in a science museum displays of theories so irrational they claim a magical sky god poofed the entire world into being by magic and gave no trace of his presence and no means of understanding the mechanisms by which it was done. That sort of thing belongs in magic shows, myths, movies, and churches. Just ridiculing something because it doesn't adhere to a certain set of Bronze Age beliefs is not only arrogant, it is unscientific and irrational.
 
DeWitt went onto say ""We come every year, because I don't hold anything back from the students." Well he's doing worse than holding back. He's spitting in the face of science and everyone who has ever worked to further the knowledge of mankind. He's teaching his students to reject reason in favor of irrational belief. He's teaching his students scoff at anything that isn't written in the bible even if it has done more to improve their quality of life than religion could ever hope to match. These young impressionable minds will only have their already bias minds further reinforced with irrational beliefs that not only go against the very foundations of science, but pervert their own religious beliefs.
 
The article went onto describe how other fundementalist groups are planning other trips. They will be guilty of the same irrational nonsense as DeWitt, insulting the concept of knowledge in exchange for dogma. But to the credit of the Smithsonian and other museums of the sort, they do not reject these anti-science zealots. They welcome them with open arms, which is more than Farwell's igornance spewing school can say. Try entering Liberty as a muslim, an hindu, a homosexual, or heaven forbid an atheist. What are the chances they will be anywhere near as welcoming?
 
The article aslo referenced a Pew poll that revealed around 42 percent of Americans believe in DeWitt's Bronze Age mythological nonsense. That shows just how deep ignorance runs in this country. These ongoing practices of insulting the champions of science are NOT helping. Creationism has been shown time and again to be no more scientific than stories surrounding unicorns, fairies, and mermaids. It's failed every major test of scientific scrutiny and propogating it as a valid alternative is insulting to the very idea of reason.
 
People are free to believe whatever they want. But people who try to poison the well of knowledge, stifle human creativity, and push their dogma on others are enemies of a free and rational society.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Celebrating Charles Darwin's 200th Birthday

Posted by Jack Fisher on Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:27:57 PM
On February 12, 1809, Charles Darwin was born and the scientific world would never be the same. 200 years later, his impact cannot be understated not just in his contributions to science, but also in his profound effect on religion, culture, and philosophy. It is ironic as well because Charles Darwin never saw himself as anything more than a man of science. It would be future generations that would take his simple theory and extrapolate so much more from it.
 
For better or worse, Charles Darwin is a figure constantly referenced in the culture wars. His theory flew in the face of many old traditions, most notably that of creationism. Like Pasteur before him along with Newton and Galileo, most people had only age-old stories to explain forces they didn't understand. Darwin's idea was revolutionary in its reasoning. For the first time a mechanism of change within living things was identified and the principle of evolving, adapting, dynamic systems of life made sense. And it did this without evoking supernatural forces. This upset many ardent believers and still does to this day. But some people take it further.
 
Religous coservatives and even radical political groups like the Nazi's condemned evolution. Ironically it was those who despised it that gave it the ideologicial connotations that are frequently used in the culture wars today. Darwin never mentioned anything about philosophy, politics, or morality in his work. Yet there are those who see evolution as a philosophy of sorts that those opposed to traditional spiritual beliefs support. This is completely ignoring the essance of what evolution is and it ignores the very tenants of science, but the conflict persists as evolution is an easy target because it's so vast and explains something so grand that some people can't accept that there were no divine forces involved.
 
This uncertainty and ignorance about evolution is why many don't believe it, particularly in the religous landscape of America. A recent gallap poll revealed that only 39 percent of American's believe in evolution. Many do so on religious grounds without understanding what evolution truly is or what Darwin truly laid out. In most other industrialized countries the vast majority of the population accepts evolution. Even the late Pope John Paul conceded that evolution was a well founded theory that should be taken seriously and shouldn't be rejected on the grounds of faith. In the academic circle, it's even more widely accepted. Over 95 percent of all scientists agree with evolution and it remains the foundation for modern biology.
 
But regardless of how many people believe it, evolution has proven the test of time. Darwin was very bold for his time to make such a hypothesis when there was no knowledge of DNA, cells, or advanced biochemistry. There were even fewer fossils to be referenced yet he predicted that over time science would uncover a fossil record that would illustrate the common descent of species over the ages. And he was correct. Fossils along with many other advances on biology and chemistry have proven Darwin's theory with a wealth of information even he couldn't have dreamed.
 
Evolution has shined light on our understanding of life and while still entrenched in the culture war, has left an undeniable impact on the world. And it all began 200 years ago with the birth of a man with humble beginnings. Charles Darwin's contribution to the world is arguably one of the most important in the annals of science. It continues to draw controversy from those who do not understand it, but it is still a feat worthy of celebration two centuries later. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bridging Gaps of Ignorance

Posted by Jack Fisher on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:42:33 AM
Recently, Marvin Olasky posted an article detailing ways to start dialogue between what he called 'darwinists' and believers like himself. The article tried to appear reasonable, but Olasky made no secret of his bias.
 
 
First off, he makes one key mistake. There is no such thing in the scientific world as "Darwinism." It isn't an ideology and it isn't a philosophy. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is just that, a theory. And a theory, which Olasky seems to confuse with blind speculation, is defined in science as a coherent explanation about natural phenomena supported by evidence. Olasky then goes onto list what he considers weaknesses of evolution, which if he did any research whatsoever would have known were illogical and disproven claims made by creationists.
 
First off, he claims there has never been an observed instance of one 'kind' of animal turning into another 'kind.' But he never gives a single explanation for what a 'kind' is. He claims nobody ever saw a dog produce a cat. Well of course! Evolution doesn't allow that. It allows for speciation and common descent from a common ancestor. And speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab many times. Check the link below for peer reviewed evidence of it:
 
 
Then he goes onto claim DNA is like a computer and as such it needs a programmer. But this isn't what DNA is and it's a totally false dichtomy. DNA is NOT like a computer. It is product of chemistry and physics. And moreover, the origin of DNA has NOTHING to do with evolution. That would be Abiogenesis, which does have a body of evidence supporting it, but of course Olasky doesn't make that distinction. No dogmatic, anti-science creationist would. It may cause them to think too much. Moreover, DNA is not necessary to survive. Simple bacteria function just fine without it. They use only RNA. So Orlasky clearly hasn't read a high school science textbook either because anybody with a capacity to check facts would know that.
 
Lastly, Olasky makes the old irreducible complexity argument, championed by Michael Behe, a noted Intelligent Design advocate. He claims DNA and cells are just too complex to have emerged from natural processes. But once again he shows more ignorance when he says mutations can't account for such change because they're often disadventageous. This is completely wrong and any textbook will confirm that. Most mutations are completely nuetral. And it has been estimated that there are well over 100 per zygote after conception. And over time mutations do accumulate in DNA so that when conditions change, the previously neutral mutation may provide a benefit or detriment. Natural selection takes over.
 
Orlasky, like all creationists, is working off the assumption that god created everything as it says in the bible and evolution is by definition flawed because it conflicts with his beliefs. This is completely wrong not to mention self-centered. Just because a theory happens to contradict a certain story about a certain deity and believers don't like it doesn't mean that it has to be false. Evolution is true because evidence supports it. And many different fields cross confirm it including palentology, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, and taxonomy. Creationism and Intelligent design isn't cross confirmed by ANYTHING. It's wild speculation from creationists who are trying ot sound more scientific. But they make the same mistake. They try to inject their spiritual beliefs into science and that violates the very definition of science. Science by its own design can only deal with natural forces. Anything supernatural is the domain of speculation, faith, and psuedo-science.
 
It's also worth noting that people like Orlasky are singling out just one theory. It's easy to forget that biblical dogma also contradicts the heliocentric theory, the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun, and it also contradicts germ theory because the bible says in many passages that disease is caused by evil spirits (1st Samuel 16:14-16). So why evolution? Well evolution is easier to doubt because it deals with the past and there's always a touch of uncertainty when dealing with the past. Even when the evidence is blatently clear, that's not enough for believers. Any gap must discredit the entire theory, thus vindicating their cherished beliefs.
 
Orlasky ends his article with very dry references to these 'darwinists' he refers to. He plays the old addage that life is such a miracle and it couldn't possibly have just happened naturally. Well that's not a scientific fact. That's a subjective opinion. Science is not nearly as arrogant as Orlasky puts it. Science is willing to state that it does not have all the answers, but it always investigating. Pepole like Orlasky and other creationists adherents are so arrogant they try to make it sound as though they know what science doesn't and only ask that people suspend their reason and believe Bronze Age folklore on faith. Not only is that completely unscientific, it's an afront to human curiosity. Orlasky like every creationist before him doesn't understand what science is, but is willing to attack it if he sees it as an afront to his beliefs. He is willing to ignore all the good that science does just so he and others like him can be content in their beliefs. It is arrogant and conceit in the highest regard and deserves only the greatest of scorn.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »