Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Bob Doesn't Evolve, He Just Re-treads the Same Tired Crap

There's an old aphorism: Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth.

Repeating a lie over and over is, for Bob, a form of "proof."

On Tuesday, Bob spoke with Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute. Bob had Bruce on his show to talk about those mean scientists who want to "censor" the Discovery Institute. The reason for this bitch-and-moan session is that the Discovery Institute has been invited by SMU's Christian Legal Society to hold a conference entitled "Darwin vs Design." DI is going put on an event that claims that the universe is too complex to have arise through natural forces and the mean scientists who work at the university don't want the event to occur.

But before Bob and Bruce began bitching, Bob took to reassuring his audience. Bobbo told his listeners of a rule he discovered when it comes to debate. It's simple: If one side wants to censor the other, it's because they censors have weaker arguments than the censored. Evolutionists want to censor Creation "scientists" because they know that Creationism is better science. Bob called it "common sense."

I call it circumstantial ad hominem. Just because scientists are protecting the integrity of scientific ideas doesn't make them "censors." Nor does it invalidate evolution. It means that they are taking a position that Bob, in his ignorant way, fails to understand.

And the ignorance kept flowing, like the waters of the mighty Mississippi.

In starting the conversation, Bob and Bruce asserted that evolutionists are afraid of the Discovery Institute because their motives are "atheistic." And since atheism is an inherently religious idea, creationists should be allowed to counter their claims.


Evolution is not an "atheistic" position. It is not a "religious" position. It is a scientific position.

Evolution is the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms. It is the description of a process. Evolution is not inherently anything but a description of the forces through which species survive and adapt to their environment.

So Bob and Brucie are perceiving evolution as atheistic even though it's makes no claim about the existence of God. Bobbo and Brucie are answering a question that evolution doesn't ask.

Which takes us to their second point.

Bobbo and Brucie always "welcome debate." They welcome debate because they claim to be presenting scientific arguments. Should this debate occur, creationists would be victorious, and evolutionists would crumble from the force of their arguments.


Why should scientists debate creationists when creationists fail to even understand or represent evolution accurately? Hell, Bruce isn't even a scientist! He's a politician! Scientists can and will debate, provided the debate is scientific. But again, Creationists have to misrepresent their agenda because it's distinctly non-scientific. They want make the argument about religion and then claim that it's science!

But don't be fooled. Creationism has no basis in science.

In the seminal case Kitzmiller v. Dover, the Federal bench had to determine if creationism is, in fact, science. Creationism was found wanting. The Court concluded, "[W]e have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

So if Creationism isn't science, why should scientists debate creationists? The answer is that they shouldn't have to. But if creationists did actual science, I'm sure the scientists would welcome the debate. Until then, real scientists don't owe creationists the time of day.

All of which explains why the scientists at SMU are angry about the Discovery Institutes's campaign of misinformation.

Finally, Brucie and Bob claimed that this issue is, ultimately, about the nature of logic.

I have to say I agree.

The issue is whether people should accept the truth of evolution based upon the mounds of evidence the supports it, or to surrender logic and believe two people who can't be honest enough to represent evolution accurately.

But you should always know, that no matter how many times Bob lies, dissembles, or outright misrepresents evolution, its still true.

Because the science says so.


Anonymous said...

Nice post Irl...

Today, Bob also used the terms "evolutionary scientists" and "leftists" in the same breath (as if no conservatives/Republicans accept the reality of evolutionary science.

Isn't it nice how Bob can divide everything and everybody into two categories? Conservatives, Republicans, Christians, and Creation "scientists" are all good, while liberals, leftists, Democrats, atheists, Mormans, Muslims, Black preachers, and evolutionary scientists are all bad.

The opinion in Kitzmiller v. Miller by Republican-appointed Judge John E. Jones III is masterpiece in that it fully, yet concisely, smacksdown all of the claims of the Intelligent Design (ID) proponent.. The thing you must understand about ID is that it doesn't set forth a scientific theory and therefore cannot be tested or subjected to scrutiny. Rather, ID sets forth that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." This quote from Kitzmiller pretty much sums up the lack of logic in the ID movement:

ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, we believe that arguments against evolution
are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that
they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

djtyg said...

Bob often makes it a point to use "leftist" or "liberal" with the words "anti-God". It's a linguistic technique that uses word association to fool people into thinking that one means the other. Kind of like when Bush was making the case for war in Iraq and kept invoking 9/11.

Bob only complains that there is no debate when liberals have the upper hand. He complains about media bias, but then praises Fox Noise Channel for being conservatively biased. What a hypocrite.

Personally, I'd like him to bring us onto his shows for a debate, and make it so we can't get our mic's cut:).