Many people will use words like "spiritual" and "spirituality" like they were common everyday words, like it's completely clear to anybody what they mean. However, try to ask someone what they mean by "spiritual", and you might find out that, even to their own surprise, they cannot clearly define it. (In a significant amount of cases they will even retort something like "you know perfectly well what it means", rather than trying to answer.)
I just had an epiphany: When for example reading any text that uses eg. the word "spiritual" (that's not just discussing said word in a rational skeptic manner), simply substitute it with the word "emotional". Suddenly all that text starts making much more sense!
For example, "that was a very spiritual experience" = "that was a very emotional experience."
"My spirit was moved" = "my emotions were moved."
"She's a very spiritual woman" = "she's a very emotional woman."
"You couldn't even begin to understand the spiritual world" = "you couldn't even begin to understand the emotional world."
It just fits so perfectly!
(And that's really what "spiritual" means: Emotional. It's all about feelings and emotions, nothing more. All those sentences start making a lot more sense this way.)
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Fabricating ignorance
As commented many, many times, argument from ignorance is extremely prevalent in religion, ufology, new age, and all kinds of pseudoscience: The fact that science doesn't know something is taken as evidence of your favorite explanation.
Many pseudoscientists, however, go even farther. It's not enough for them to take things that we genuinely don't yet have an explanation for. No, they have to take things we know quite well how they work, and pretend that we don't. Just making the claim is enough to make many people believe that's so.
Example: "Science has no idea why water is the only substance that has a lower density when it freezes."
Present this claim to a fan audience, and they will swallow it without even a hint of skepticism. Just because a charismatic person is making such claims will automatically suspend any disbelief or skepticism in their audience.
In fact, there are two errors in that example. Firstly, water is not the only substance that has a lower density when it freezes. Secondly, we know quite well why water behaves in that manner. (Basically, the water molecules take more space when frozen because they rearrange themselves in a crystalline shape, and they rearrange themselves like that when frozen due to their electromagnetic properties.) Yet, how easy is it to sneak in not just one, but two errors like this, and have a gullible audience swallow it without question?
This is especially jarring nowadays when you can do fact-checking extremely easily by googling. We are today amazingly privileged in this manner compared to people of just 20 years ago who had no such resources at their disposal. Back then it could well take you a full day, or several days, to find the facts that you can find today in a couple of minutes from the comfort of your home. Yet people are still too lazy to do that.
Many pseudoscientists, however, go even farther. It's not enough for them to take things that we genuinely don't yet have an explanation for. No, they have to take things we know quite well how they work, and pretend that we don't. Just making the claim is enough to make many people believe that's so.
Example: "Science has no idea why water is the only substance that has a lower density when it freezes."
Present this claim to a fan audience, and they will swallow it without even a hint of skepticism. Just because a charismatic person is making such claims will automatically suspend any disbelief or skepticism in their audience.
In fact, there are two errors in that example. Firstly, water is not the only substance that has a lower density when it freezes. Secondly, we know quite well why water behaves in that manner. (Basically, the water molecules take more space when frozen because they rearrange themselves in a crystalline shape, and they rearrange themselves like that when frozen due to their electromagnetic properties.) Yet, how easy is it to sneak in not just one, but two errors like this, and have a gullible audience swallow it without question?
This is especially jarring nowadays when you can do fact-checking extremely easily by googling. We are today amazingly privileged in this manner compared to people of just 20 years ago who had no such resources at their disposal. Back then it could well take you a full day, or several days, to find the facts that you can find today in a couple of minutes from the comfort of your home. Yet people are still too lazy to do that.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
"Prove the existence of God without the Bible"
Sometimes some skeptics seem to be a bit off track when demanding evidence for the existence of a god. While not extremely common, it's not extremely unusual to see something like this:
"Prove the existence of God without referencing anything in the Bible."
There may be good intent in this, but imposing that restriction is completely unnecessary, really. If someone wants to try to prove the existence of a god using the Bible, then they can go right ahead. Using the Bible to do that is one of the weakest possible ways of proving that. It's completely useless.
The existence of something is not proven by reading some words in a book, no matter what those words are. You can literally write anything you want, and it proves absolutely nothing. Existence of something is demonstrated via direct observation, measurement and testing, not by the words of some book.
Every single argument that could be made from the Bible, even if they were true, would still not prove the existence of a god. For example, a common argument is that the Bible presents some information that was impossible for the people of the time to know. While that's demonstrably untrue, even if we granted that claim for the sake of argument, it would still not prove the existence of a god. Why? Because we don't know the source of that information. Even if it was indeed impossibly advanced knowledge, we would have to first determine where they got that knowledge before jumping to a god. Jumping to a god would be a non-sequitur, an argument from ignorance.
"Prove the existence of God without referencing anything in the Bible."
There may be good intent in this, but imposing that restriction is completely unnecessary, really. If someone wants to try to prove the existence of a god using the Bible, then they can go right ahead. Using the Bible to do that is one of the weakest possible ways of proving that. It's completely useless.
The existence of something is not proven by reading some words in a book, no matter what those words are. You can literally write anything you want, and it proves absolutely nothing. Existence of something is demonstrated via direct observation, measurement and testing, not by the words of some book.
Every single argument that could be made from the Bible, even if they were true, would still not prove the existence of a god. For example, a common argument is that the Bible presents some information that was impossible for the people of the time to know. While that's demonstrably untrue, even if we granted that claim for the sake of argument, it would still not prove the existence of a god. Why? Because we don't know the source of that information. Even if it was indeed impossibly advanced knowledge, we would have to first determine where they got that knowledge before jumping to a god. Jumping to a god would be a non-sequitur, an argument from ignorance.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Beneficial mutations and moving goalposts
One of the favorite arguments that creationists love to spout is that genetic mutations are always detrimental, and that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. They often challenge skeptics to give them examples of even one beneficial mutation.
Of course when they are given examples, goalposts are immediately moved to discard them.
For example, if you give them the example of the mutation that protects some people from malaria, they will refuse it as a "beneficial mutation" because it has the side-effect of causing propensity for sickle-cell anemia. Of course "beneficial mutation" must mean that it has to be only beneficial, without drawbacks. It doesn't matter if there is some benefit, it doesn't count. (This is actually one of the examples that creationists love to attack and laugh at. Never mind that sickle-cell anemia isn't nearly as bad as malaria.)
But fine, it's not like we have a shortage of beneficial mutations. We can give them examples of mutations that are purely beneficial, without drawbacks. For instance, you can give them the example of Stephen Crohn, a man who had a quite unique genetic mutation that rendered him basically immune to HIV. The standard response of creationists to this is denial, doubt ("I don't believe it") or dismissal using some really lousy excuse, such as that it doesn't count because the mutation wasn't passed to further generations, or something.
If the uniqueness of the mutation is such a problem, then one can give them an example of a very widespread mutation: Lactose tolerance. It's quite well established that humans were lactose intolerant in the distant past (and many of them still are), and a relatively recent mutation made a significant portion of the human population tolerant. There are many benefits from being able to consume milk in adulthood, and basically no drawbacks.
Again, the standard creationist response is denial or doubt (ie. they doubt that it's actually caused by a "mutation"), or clinging to some perceived drawback as an excuse to dismiss the example. And if anything else fails, they will move goalposts once again and fall back to another favorite tactic of them: They will say that this mutation didn't "add new information" to the gene pool.
If they do that, then you have already won the argument. The original claim was that there is no demonstrable beneficial mutation, and we have given them an example they cannot refute, except by falling back to a completely different claim. (Of course, good luck trying to make them admit that their initial claim was false. Don't hold your breath.)
The demand for purely beneficial mutations also shows another misunderstanding that creationists have about evolution. They seem to think that evolution is possible only if there are purely beneficial mutations that have no drawbacks whatsoever. That's not how it works.
Species change all the time. Some changes are good, some changes are bad, some changes are neutral. Moreover, most individual changes to the genes actually produce several morphological changes. Genes are such contrived and complicated constructs that changing even one single unit of it will often have several different consequences (many of which might not even be apparently related to each other at all.)
Many beneficial changes will, as a kind of side-effect, also produce less-beneficial changes. However, if the overall result is that the species becomes more fit for survival, this change will more probably remain. In other words, if the benefit outweighs the drawback even a little (in terms of chances of survival and procreation), then it has a good chance of being retained in the gene pool.
Thus, it doesn't matter if a mutation that eg. protects from malaria also causes anemia: If being protected from malaria increases survival rates compared to the anemia, then it's overall beneficial and it will more likely be retained. After all, evolution is a completely mindless process; it has no goals (like "aiming for perfection"), it just happens. Sometimes species get horrible defects alongside the change that makes them fitter for survival, but evolution doesn't care. It can't care. It's just a side-effect of natural phenomena.
Of course when they are given examples, goalposts are immediately moved to discard them.
For example, if you give them the example of the mutation that protects some people from malaria, they will refuse it as a "beneficial mutation" because it has the side-effect of causing propensity for sickle-cell anemia. Of course "beneficial mutation" must mean that it has to be only beneficial, without drawbacks. It doesn't matter if there is some benefit, it doesn't count. (This is actually one of the examples that creationists love to attack and laugh at. Never mind that sickle-cell anemia isn't nearly as bad as malaria.)
But fine, it's not like we have a shortage of beneficial mutations. We can give them examples of mutations that are purely beneficial, without drawbacks. For instance, you can give them the example of Stephen Crohn, a man who had a quite unique genetic mutation that rendered him basically immune to HIV. The standard response of creationists to this is denial, doubt ("I don't believe it") or dismissal using some really lousy excuse, such as that it doesn't count because the mutation wasn't passed to further generations, or something.
If the uniqueness of the mutation is such a problem, then one can give them an example of a very widespread mutation: Lactose tolerance. It's quite well established that humans were lactose intolerant in the distant past (and many of them still are), and a relatively recent mutation made a significant portion of the human population tolerant. There are many benefits from being able to consume milk in adulthood, and basically no drawbacks.
Again, the standard creationist response is denial or doubt (ie. they doubt that it's actually caused by a "mutation"), or clinging to some perceived drawback as an excuse to dismiss the example. And if anything else fails, they will move goalposts once again and fall back to another favorite tactic of them: They will say that this mutation didn't "add new information" to the gene pool.
If they do that, then you have already won the argument. The original claim was that there is no demonstrable beneficial mutation, and we have given them an example they cannot refute, except by falling back to a completely different claim. (Of course, good luck trying to make them admit that their initial claim was false. Don't hold your breath.)
The demand for purely beneficial mutations also shows another misunderstanding that creationists have about evolution. They seem to think that evolution is possible only if there are purely beneficial mutations that have no drawbacks whatsoever. That's not how it works.
Species change all the time. Some changes are good, some changes are bad, some changes are neutral. Moreover, most individual changes to the genes actually produce several morphological changes. Genes are such contrived and complicated constructs that changing even one single unit of it will often have several different consequences (many of which might not even be apparently related to each other at all.)
Many beneficial changes will, as a kind of side-effect, also produce less-beneficial changes. However, if the overall result is that the species becomes more fit for survival, this change will more probably remain. In other words, if the benefit outweighs the drawback even a little (in terms of chances of survival and procreation), then it has a good chance of being retained in the gene pool.
Thus, it doesn't matter if a mutation that eg. protects from malaria also causes anemia: If being protected from malaria increases survival rates compared to the anemia, then it's overall beneficial and it will more likely be retained. After all, evolution is a completely mindless process; it has no goals (like "aiming for perfection"), it just happens. Sometimes species get horrible defects alongside the change that makes them fitter for survival, but evolution doesn't care. It can't care. It's just a side-effect of natural phenomena.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
The reliability of the Bible
One of the core tenets of Christian apologetics is, of course, that the Bible is a reliable and accurate historical document, and that Jesus was a real person, and pretty much exactly like described in the Bible. Miles and miles of text has been written by such apologists and theologians trying to argue why this is so.
These are some of the most common arguments they make, and why they are invalid.
No, they don't. Some strongly argue for it, others against it. Most are open to the possibility of a person named "Yeshua" having existed, who was the basis of the texts, but they don't assert it. Others propose that the "Jesus" of the text is actually an amalgamation of several people (plus a good deal of embellishment.)
The vast majority of historians would agree that it's possible that the story of Jesus is loosely based on a real person, but that the vast majority of the details about him in the New Testament are inaccurate. They also would agree that it's possible that no such person existed at all. Thus, there is no unanimous agreement.
No, they most definitely don't. This is just an outright lie perpetuated by dishonest apologists.
In fact, there are even many Christian historians and theologians who admit to the possibility that many of the events described in the New Testament probably never happened. (Of course the apologists who perpetuate the lie will just resort to the no-true-scotsman fallacy at this point.)
Actually, there aren't. None at all. This is another lie perpetuated by these dishonest apologists.
They will cite several historians of the first and second centuries, but in every single case these historians are not accounting contemporary historical events, but instead are describing Christians and their beliefs. Invariably, all these mentions were written many decades (sometimes even over a century) after the alleged events of the New Testament. A document mentioning Jesus is not a very reliable source if said document was written a hundred years after Jesus (allegedly) died, and in context is just describing what Christians believed.
For example, apologists just love to mention Josephus, as he mentions Jesus' followers in his text. What they don't mention is that Josephus was born in 37 AD, long after Jesus' alleged death. Hardly a contemporary eyewitness. (All the other historians that apologists love to cite were born later than Josephus, so they aren't any better.)
This is a perfect example of a circular argument. It argues that there were thousands and thousands of eyewitnesses to the events described in the gospels, and thus the New Testament is very reliable. But how do we know there were thousands of eyewitnesses? Because the New Testament says so. There is no other source for these alleged eyewitnesses.
I don't think it's necessary to add anything to that. It's a circular argument in its purest form. (And this isn't even going into the fact of how unreliable eyewitness testimony is, no matter how many witnesses there are.)
This is one of the favorite arguments of many apologists, and it's one of the stupidest.
Firstly, the gospels were just some books written by some people, which were copied and spread very slowly. They did not mass-print them for the masses because there was no printing technology. And even if a copy did end up in the hands of someone who had lived at one of those places at the correct time, and even if this person had realized that the described events never actually happened, so what? This person probably didn't know who had written the text, nor had the means to do something about it even if he or she wanted.
Also, even if it did happen, the person could have just thought that he didn't witness it because he was just unlucky. It probably happened on the other side of the city, or when he was not around to see it.
Secondly, the gospels were written several decades after the alleged events. Most of the potential eyewitnesses had died or were too young to remember.
Thirdly, we have actual examples of fictional biographies, or biographies with inaccuracies in them, having been written very soon after a person has died, and with nobody objecting to them or correcting them. (The biography of George Washington is a perfect example.) And these are not biographies written decades after the person's death, but almost immediately.
This is appealing to the notion that historical writing cannot become distorted by legends if it's written too soon after the events. This is a misunderstanding of the original proposition, and is very demonstrably false.
It also has the big problem that it assumes that there were events to be distorted by legends in the first place. There's absolutely nothing that would have stopped the authors of the gospels from just inventing the events.
You could just as well argue that the Harry Potter books were written too soon after the events they describe in order for them to be inaccurate. It makes absolutely no sense.
A very common, and strange, argument that many Christians present, including these apologists, is that since there are some details in the Bible that are demonstrably true, that means that the entire Bible is reliable.
In other word, since it's demonstrably true that this or that king or head of state existed, then that means that the entire story of Jesus' crucifixion and burial is true. This argument makes no sense whatsoever.
You could use the exact same argument to claim that the Harry Potter books are reliable history because they talk about real cities.
This is an even stranger argument given that people die all the time around the world because of their convictions. Surely these Christians are not going to argue that all belief systems are accurate because of that?
(Of course apologists will respond to this with special pleading, claiming that Christianity is in this regard somehow different from all those other thousands of belief systems.)
I don't even understand this argument. We have countless religion around the world and over all of history. How did they all begin? First a small group of people start believing in something (often the ideas of one single person) and they start gathering more and more people. As time passes, they develop more and more intricate details to their new religion. I don't even see what's the problem here.
These are some of the most common arguments they make, and why they are invalid.
"Historians almost unanimously agree that Jesus was a real person."
No, they don't. Some strongly argue for it, others against it. Most are open to the possibility of a person named "Yeshua" having existed, who was the basis of the texts, but they don't assert it. Others propose that the "Jesus" of the text is actually an amalgamation of several people (plus a good deal of embellishment.)
The vast majority of historians would agree that it's possible that the story of Jesus is loosely based on a real person, but that the vast majority of the details about him in the New Testament are inaccurate. They also would agree that it's possible that no such person existed at all. Thus, there is no unanimous agreement.
"Most historians agree that the New Testament is historically realiable."
No, they most definitely don't. This is just an outright lie perpetuated by dishonest apologists.
In fact, there are even many Christian historians and theologians who admit to the possibility that many of the events described in the New Testament probably never happened. (Of course the apologists who perpetuate the lie will just resort to the no-true-scotsman fallacy at this point.)
"There are numerous extrabiblical sources for the existence of Jesus."
Actually, there aren't. None at all. This is another lie perpetuated by these dishonest apologists.
They will cite several historians of the first and second centuries, but in every single case these historians are not accounting contemporary historical events, but instead are describing Christians and their beliefs. Invariably, all these mentions were written many decades (sometimes even over a century) after the alleged events of the New Testament. A document mentioning Jesus is not a very reliable source if said document was written a hundred years after Jesus (allegedly) died, and in context is just describing what Christians believed.
For example, apologists just love to mention Josephus, as he mentions Jesus' followers in his text. What they don't mention is that Josephus was born in 37 AD, long after Jesus' alleged death. Hardly a contemporary eyewitness. (All the other historians that apologists love to cite were born later than Josephus, so they aren't any better.)
"The New Testament is reliable because of the thousands of eyewitnesses."
This is a perfect example of a circular argument. It argues that there were thousands and thousands of eyewitnesses to the events described in the gospels, and thus the New Testament is very reliable. But how do we know there were thousands of eyewitnesses? Because the New Testament says so. There is no other source for these alleged eyewitnesses.
I don't think it's necessary to add anything to that. It's a circular argument in its purest form. (And this isn't even going into the fact of how unreliable eyewitness testimony is, no matter how many witnesses there are.)
"The gospels cannot be inaccurate because the people who lived in those places and witnessed those events would have objected to the inaccuracies."
This is one of the favorite arguments of many apologists, and it's one of the stupidest.
Firstly, the gospels were just some books written by some people, which were copied and spread very slowly. They did not mass-print them for the masses because there was no printing technology. And even if a copy did end up in the hands of someone who had lived at one of those places at the correct time, and even if this person had realized that the described events never actually happened, so what? This person probably didn't know who had written the text, nor had the means to do something about it even if he or she wanted.
Also, even if it did happen, the person could have just thought that he didn't witness it because he was just unlucky. It probably happened on the other side of the city, or when he was not around to see it.
Secondly, the gospels were written several decades after the alleged events. Most of the potential eyewitnesses had died or were too young to remember.
Thirdly, we have actual examples of fictional biographies, or biographies with inaccuracies in them, having been written very soon after a person has died, and with nobody objecting to them or correcting them. (The biography of George Washington is a perfect example.) And these are not biographies written decades after the person's death, but almost immediately.
"The gospels cannot be a case of real history having become legendary because they were written too soon after the events."
This is appealing to the notion that historical writing cannot become distorted by legends if it's written too soon after the events. This is a misunderstanding of the original proposition, and is very demonstrably false.
It also has the big problem that it assumes that there were events to be distorted by legends in the first place. There's absolutely nothing that would have stopped the authors of the gospels from just inventing the events.
You could just as well argue that the Harry Potter books were written too soon after the events they describe in order for them to be inaccurate. It makes absolutely no sense.
"The New Testament is reliable because this or that person, or this or that place, really existed."
A very common, and strange, argument that many Christians present, including these apologists, is that since there are some details in the Bible that are demonstrably true, that means that the entire Bible is reliable.
In other word, since it's demonstrably true that this or that king or head of state existed, then that means that the entire story of Jesus' crucifixion and burial is true. This argument makes no sense whatsoever.
You could use the exact same argument to claim that the Harry Potter books are reliable history because they talk about real cities.
"Martyrs wouldn't have died for a lie."
This is an even stranger argument given that people die all the time around the world because of their convictions. Surely these Christians are not going to argue that all belief systems are accurate because of that?
(Of course apologists will respond to this with special pleading, claiming that Christianity is in this regard somehow different from all those other thousands of belief systems.)
"If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then how did the church begin? You have to give a plausible alternative explanation."
(Yes, this really is an argument that some apologists, even very high-profile ones, make.)I don't even understand this argument. We have countless religion around the world and over all of history. How did they all begin? First a small group of people start believing in something (often the ideas of one single person) and they start gathering more and more people. As time passes, they develop more and more intricate details to their new religion. I don't even see what's the problem here.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Anything goes (as long as it's not science)
I have written about this subject previously, but it just never ceases to amaze me.
There's an almost frightening amount of people in this world who would believe almost anything. The only two criteria that they seem to apply to what they believe are:
As unbelievable as it sounds (and to me it still does), there really are many people out there who will accept almost anything as long as it's something that science does not accept. It literally doesn't matter how completely crazy and clearly made-up it is, as long as a group of people believe it, and as long as science does not, they will believe it too (or, at the very least, consider it possible and be completely uncritical about it.)
Scientific claims are believed only if they pertain to the person's immediate practical surroundings and experience, or if they have no significance to their other beliefs. Scientific claims that contradict their other beliefs will be freely dismissed without thought or rationale.
Naturally scientific claims that can be used to bolster some of their other beliefs will be used. Or rather, a completely distorted-beyond-recognition version of a simplified "reader's digest" version of the scientific theory (ie, not only will an inaccurate overly-simplified version of the scientific theory be used, but even that will then be distorted to accommodate and support whatever claim the person wants.)
Just to give a taste, here are two actual examples of what some people accept completely uncritically:
They believe that some ten thousand years ago people from Mars arrived to Earth, and many people today are their descendants. And why exactly do they believe this? Because one person a couple of decades ago claimed to have a vision where he got this information (among a ton of other even crazier stuff.)
That's all. There's exactly zero evidence of this other than the claim of this one man that he got this information in a vision. And thousands of people today believe this completely uncritically.
Another example is the claim that in recent years hundreds of "super-psychic" children have been born in China. According to this claim, these children can do almost anything (including telepathy, levitating and moving objects, moving through solid objects, and so on.)
Why hasn't this hit all the news media around the world? For the flimsiest of excuses: According to these people, the Chinese scientists are afraid to publish these results for fear of ridicule. (They don't seem to be fazed by the contradiction that this poses: How do they know about this event if nobody in the news media knows about it? Why hasn't this leaked?)
The people who uncritically believe these things demand no evidence. It's enough if many other people believe it too, and someone who is charismatic enough makes the claim.
There's an almost frightening amount of people in this world who would believe almost anything. The only two criteria that they seem to apply to what they believe are:
- It's believed by a significant amount of people.
- The scientific community does not accept it.
As unbelievable as it sounds (and to me it still does), there really are many people out there who will accept almost anything as long as it's something that science does not accept. It literally doesn't matter how completely crazy and clearly made-up it is, as long as a group of people believe it, and as long as science does not, they will believe it too (or, at the very least, consider it possible and be completely uncritical about it.)
Scientific claims are believed only if they pertain to the person's immediate practical surroundings and experience, or if they have no significance to their other beliefs. Scientific claims that contradict their other beliefs will be freely dismissed without thought or rationale.
Naturally scientific claims that can be used to bolster some of their other beliefs will be used. Or rather, a completely distorted-beyond-recognition version of a simplified "reader's digest" version of the scientific theory (ie, not only will an inaccurate overly-simplified version of the scientific theory be used, but even that will then be distorted to accommodate and support whatever claim the person wants.)
Just to give a taste, here are two actual examples of what some people accept completely uncritically:
They believe that some ten thousand years ago people from Mars arrived to Earth, and many people today are their descendants. And why exactly do they believe this? Because one person a couple of decades ago claimed to have a vision where he got this information (among a ton of other even crazier stuff.)
That's all. There's exactly zero evidence of this other than the claim of this one man that he got this information in a vision. And thousands of people today believe this completely uncritically.
Another example is the claim that in recent years hundreds of "super-psychic" children have been born in China. According to this claim, these children can do almost anything (including telepathy, levitating and moving objects, moving through solid objects, and so on.)
Why hasn't this hit all the news media around the world? For the flimsiest of excuses: According to these people, the Chinese scientists are afraid to publish these results for fear of ridicule. (They don't seem to be fazed by the contradiction that this poses: How do they know about this event if nobody in the news media knows about it? Why hasn't this leaked?)
The people who uncritically believe these things demand no evidence. It's enough if many other people believe it too, and someone who is charismatic enough makes the claim.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Birds and dinosaurs
For some reason creationists are in a crusade to try to discredit the notion that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. It's probably their second-most popular specific claim that they oppose about evolutionary history (the most popular being, of course, that humans and apes have a common ancestor species.) I don't even understand why they hate the notion that much. Even the creationists who accept 99% of the theory of evolution (without using that name, of course) still oppose the notion that birds are dinosaurs.
There are a couple of scientists who, while not being creationists, also loudly oppose the notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs. They are very vocal, and are sometimes quoted in tabloids and blogs.
Naturally creationists often cling to these tabloid articles as well. It really helps bolster their anti-evolutionary movement when they can quote newspaper headers like "birds have not evolved from dinosaurs after all, say scientists".
There's a huge irony in this, however. Those few scientists are not defending creationism. Their claim is that birds and dinosaurs have a more ancient common ancestor, rather than birds having evolved directly from dinosaurs. (This claim has been discredited by paleontologists and evolutionary biologists time and again, but it's still a somewhat rational and scientific hypothesis to make. It simply puts into question where exactly birds branched out in the evolutionary tree, and proposes that it happened earlier.)
In other words, the creationists are promoting an alternative evolutionary tree for birds, without realizing it. Those scientists who create those controversial tabloid news headers are not claiming that evolution didn't happen. They are simply saying that birds evolved from a more ancient ancestral species than dinosaurs.
There are a couple of scientists who, while not being creationists, also loudly oppose the notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs. They are very vocal, and are sometimes quoted in tabloids and blogs.
Naturally creationists often cling to these tabloid articles as well. It really helps bolster their anti-evolutionary movement when they can quote newspaper headers like "birds have not evolved from dinosaurs after all, say scientists".
There's a huge irony in this, however. Those few scientists are not defending creationism. Their claim is that birds and dinosaurs have a more ancient common ancestor, rather than birds having evolved directly from dinosaurs. (This claim has been discredited by paleontologists and evolutionary biologists time and again, but it's still a somewhat rational and scientific hypothesis to make. It simply puts into question where exactly birds branched out in the evolutionary tree, and proposes that it happened earlier.)
In other words, the creationists are promoting an alternative evolutionary tree for birds, without realizing it. Those scientists who create those controversial tabloid news headers are not claiming that evolution didn't happen. They are simply saying that birds evolved from a more ancient ancestral species than dinosaurs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)