…and this is a 
An anti-science carnival...what a hoot!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 27, 2006 5:41 PM, by PZ Myers
Unbelievable. Orac and Matt have found an amazing carnival: Darwin is Dead. It's short; you can read all 5 entries in about 5 minutes, and I promise, it won't kill more than a few thousand brain cells.
My favorite entry is the same as Orac's, but for a different reason. He seems to have missed this jewel of creationist illogic:
So here goes. To the evolutionists: First, evolution claims that humans and apes have a common ancestor. But since apes are not still evolving into man that notion is debunked without performing a single experiment. Science is the study of things obervable, and man evolving from apes has not been observed. Since both creatures still co-exist, something such as this WOULD be obervable if it were true.
Yep, it's the old "if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" argument. I laugh every time I see it.
OK, rifle Jesus, I'll answer that one. Apes are still evolving, and have been evolving in the roughly 6 million years since humans and chimps diverged. There is no inherent tendency for apes to evolve towards humans, though—we are the product of chance—so every lineage has gone in its own direction.
We do have a darned good record of human evolution. We have the observable evidence, there is documented pattern of organic change in our history, other apes have also been evolving, and of course both creatures co-exist—if diverging species couldn't simultaneously exist, there'd only be one species on the whole planet.
Comments
Posted by: pough | February 27, 2006 6:02 PM
If there could only be one species, my vote would be for ducks. They fly, walk, float and swim; they look silly no matter what they do; they have bills and they quack. They also allow me to describe ID "theory" thusly: "If it walks like a duck and shares no other features with a duck, it must be a duck."
Posted by: afarensis | February 27, 2006 6:13 PM
Yup, that one cracked me up too. Also funny when responding to a comment pointing out that C-14 did not provides estimates for the age of the earth, replies "It is how they dated the earth, otherwise, where do they get the billions of years from?" My guess is they got the billions of years from midgets and dwarves...
Posted by: Pete K | February 27, 2006 6:45 PM
I notice yet another fallacy - the "Platonic-Biblical kinds illusion". A creature is not "either ape or human", there's a spectrum.
"Since both creatures still co-exist, something such as this WOULD be obervable if it were true"
The speaker here clearly believes evolution teaches we came from modern apes. He is referring to the common ancestor of humans and MODERN apes: Old World Apes, which went extinct millions of years ago.
And science isn't always "the study of things obervable". Solar fusion, atoms, entropy, dark matter, etc, are not directly observed. But that's surely more sophisticated criticism than these ideas deserve! The only question they prompt us to ask is how anyone can be so ignornant, with such freely-available evidence for evolution/common descent
Posted by: Ronald Brak | February 27, 2006 6:47 PM
I wish I'd known about the Darwin is Dead carnival. As an Australian creationist I would have sent them an artical proving that all life was created by ancestor spirits during the Dreamtime. I'm sure they would have appreciated my effort and included my article in their carnival.
Posted by: BronzeDog | February 27, 2006 6:52 PM
But since apes are not still evolving into man...
How does he know? Can he see them not-evolving into human-like beings in the future with his psychic powers?
Posted by: A Pang | February 27, 2006 6:54 PM
The stupid...
...it hurts. I am at this moment suffering actual pain in my head.
Posted by: Zeno | February 27, 2006 6:57 PM
Wow! The very first entry in the Darwin is Dead carnival took my breath away:
I count to infinity all the time: 1, 2, 3, .... It's easy: The secret is in the ellipsis. And just this morning I drew infinitely many points on the board by drawing a line between two points (and it was an even bigger infinity than 1, 2, 3, ...).
Mathematical arguments from non-mathematicians are just sad most of the time. If this poor fellow thinks he's proved something about infinity and the existence of God because no one can "count to infinity", then I suppose he'd be impressed by my argument that there cannot be a trillion of anything -- because no one can count to one trillion. Even if it took him only one second to recite each number (easy at the start, much harder later), counting to one trillion would require 31,709 years (and a smidgen). Ergo, you cannot count to one trillion and therefore there can never be one trillion of anything.
Posted by: Coragyps | February 27, 2006 7:00 PM
I wish you'd known that as well, Mr Brak. I'm sure they would have welcomed you ever so warmly. ;-)
Posted by: IAMB | February 27, 2006 7:04 PM
Check out one of the later comments by "radar". He's busy waving the DI's list around but I have the sinking feeling that he never bothered to read the statement they actually signed. Oh, and he forgot to mention that ID and creationism "are not realated"... snort!
Maybe someone ought to generously provide him with a link to the Steves...
Posted by: BronzeDog | February 27, 2006 7:04 PM
I'm guessing the next thing infinity guy says is going to be a paradox you're very familiar with, Zeno.
Posted by: Gerry L | February 27, 2006 7:14 PM
Actually I think I'm evolving into a chimpanzee. I spend a lot of time with them, and I've begun food grunting when I sit down to eat. (Not observable, but audible.)
Posted by: Carel | February 27, 2006 7:16 PM
Hey!!! You said this would only kill a few thousand brain sells!!!
Posted by: Orac | February 27, 2006 7:26 PM
Oh, I didn't miss that jewel; it's just that the "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" canard is the one that irritates me more than the "if man evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" idiocy.
I don't know why.
Posted by: Troutnut | February 27, 2006 7:37 PM
I feel betrayed!
I lost at least ten thousand. :(
Posted by: Carlie | February 27, 2006 7:38 PM
"Ergo, you cannot count to one trillion and therefore there can never be one trillion of anything."
Great! Does this mean that there's no national debt? (or less than a trillion, at least...)
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 27, 2006 7:38 PM
I see. We just have different favorite creationist canards.
Sorry, Carel. You should have realized that I posted that after reading the sites, and have since lost the ability to count above 3. It's tragic, I know, but at last I have some sympathy for Richard Cohen.
Posted by: Carlie | February 27, 2006 7:39 PM
"Ergo, you cannot count to one trillion and therefore there can never be one trillion of anything."
Great extension of the logic - that must mean that the national debt is less than a trillion, right? Call GW! Or tell Chrichton, and I'm sure he'll relay the good news...
Posted by: carlie | February 27, 2006 7:40 PM
I apparently can't hit backspace rather than enter. Sorry for the double post.
Posted by: Dr. Marco | February 27, 2006 7:42 PM
When reading that blog, a smile appeared in my face several times. However each time it appeared it disappeared seconds after because the thought that millions think like that is frankly repulsive
Posted by: Teophobus Atheist | February 27, 2006 7:45 PM
I wrote a little response on the radar's blog, about the mistake of believing that if certain group of famous people affirms something, this WILL be true. Yurg!
Excuse me for the ugly english, I'm a spanish speaker and english isn't my strong point.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 27, 2006 7:47 PM
At last we have a sensible explanation for GW Bush's election: by putting the dumbest administration possible in place, we minimize the maximal value to which they can count, and thereby reduce our indebtedness.
I figure with ol' W in there, our current deficit must be about a buck two fitty.
Posted by: Charlie Wagner | February 27, 2006 7:51 PM
No one who has looked at the evidence objectively can deny that humans have evolved. They have evolved culturally, morphologically and technologically in the time they have been on the earth. In addition, our kinship with our other primate cousins is clear. That all primates most likely had a common origin is obvious.
What is not obvious, however, is the mechanism by which these changes have occurred. In this matter we are still pretty much in the dark. Evolution is a process, that is strongly supported by empirical evidence. But it remains a process looking for a believable mechanism.
Random mutation and natural selection are mechanisms of evolution and it is possible to accept the reality of the process of evolution on a scientific basis and deny the claim that mutation and natural selection are capable of achieving it.
Intelligent input is also a mechanism of evolution, without any empirical support. But it is clearly obvious that random mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain the complex systems that human beings possess as well as the cultural, intellectual and social components of our collective humanity.
What we observe in humans (and other living systems) are means adapted to ends. We see structures supporting other structures and we see processes supporting other processes. We also see that these structures and processes are integrated into functional systems in such a way that they all support the overall function of the organism.
Science has failed to establish with empirical evidence, any kind of believable link between the trivial effects of mutation and selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes and systems. Some important component is missing.
Such a level of organization simply cannot be achieved by random processes and requires insight. Some kind of intelligent input seems necessary.
Posted by: Geoffrey Brent | February 27, 2006 8:18 PM
Back when I was in high school, one of my mathematics teachers was in the habit of deducting marks any time a proof used the word 'obviously'. He did this because that word, when invoked in a logical argument, almost invariably means "I can't prove this by logic, but intuition tells me it must be right." (Or, worse, "I can't prove this by logic, but it is essential to the conclusion I *want* to prove, so it must be true.")
Science, like mathematics, is frequently counter-intuitive. Newtonian mechanics was 'obvious' to three centuries of physicists before Einstein showed its failings. That a fact appears 'obvious' to some folk is a long way short of convincing proof.
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | February 27, 2006 8:19 PM
Seen in the comments on one of those posts.
etc., etc.,
But the same commenter is quite likely to believe in the authority of the Christian bible - a book which even he would believe was not "written in his vicinity in his lifetime".
PZ, you owe me about a thousand irony meters for even posting that link. Now I've got to go pick the shrapnel out of what used to be my brain. Ow.
Ow.
Ow.
Posted by: Michael "Sotek" Ralston![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 27, 2006 8:25 PM
Maybe because the first one is flat-out wrong, while the second one is just nonsense?
At least with that one you can cling to that faint hope that the person is honest, even if they're also insane.
Posted by: idlemind | February 27, 2006 8:30 PM
Geoffrey Brent,
Newton's laws go against intuition, too. Intuition says that objects in motion tend to slow down. Intuition says that for every action there is a lesser opposing reaction. Intuition holds that heavier stuff falls faster. And so on.
Intuition holds that if a monkey decides to become a person, all monkeys will therefore decide to become people. Monkey see, monkey do.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | February 27, 2006 8:32 PM
Hey, y'know, I can understand why some of these guys are so distressed. If I'd been able to pick my own ancestral taxonomic group, I'd have stayed away from those annoying primates. I'd have chosen something much cooler, like a mantid, or prettier, like a paper wasp. Just goes to show you -- you can't pick your relatives.
Posted by: schemanista | February 27, 2006 8:39 PM
Charlie could only sing one note/and the note he sings was this:
"Science has failed to establish with empirical evidence, any kind of believable link between the trivial effects of mutation and selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes and systems..."
Posted by: Jeffery Keown | February 27, 2006 8:47 PM
I enjoyed reading the DiD carneval... perhaps they'll get a bump on their heads and do another one soon. I could use a laugh like that again. I was tempted to comment, but darn, if I just can't take any more of them after Mike Janitch and I went a few rounds over the weekend.
I do love the way that guy writes, tho...
Posted by: Fox1 | February 27, 2006 8:59 PM
Charlie, did you just take 7 paragraphs to write "it's this way because I say so?"
I've been frustrated all day after I got a B+ on an essay for "wordy, over-elaborate style." Thanks for putting things in perspective.
Posted by: Onychomys | February 27, 2006 10:14 PM
The picture of a gun-wielding Jesus is awesome.
Posted by: plucky punk | February 27, 2006 10:48 PM
Hey, if I'm descended from my grandfather, then how come my cousin is still alive?
Makes about as much sense to ask that as the 'if we are related to monkeys then how come there are still monkeys' argument.
Posted by: Don | February 27, 2006 11:28 PM
Even better, "My cousin is not evolving into me, therefore he and I don't share a common ancestor."
Posted by: Robert S. | February 27, 2006 11:42 PM
I wrote a little response on the radar's blog, about the mistake of believing that if certain group of famous people affirms something, this WILL be true.
If the Bible stated that gravity was caused by God's breath pushing down on the earth, these folks would be arguing that "gravity is just a theory" and scraping up 500 scientists who agreed that Newton and Newtonists were wrong.
I suggested to radar that I'm sure I could find 500 historians who would doubt the Holocaust, too, despite the preponderance of evidence for it.
Posted by: JR | February 28, 2006 12:41 AM
"Yep, it's the old "if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" argument. I laugh every time I see it."
Yes, it surely is an idiotic argument. So how come respectable paleontologists, when asked why the dinosaurs became extinct, tell us "they didn't become extinct, they evolved into birds"?
Posted by: Dan S. | February 28, 2006 1:00 AM
"Yes, it surely is an idiotic argument. So how come respectable paleontologists, when asked why the dinosaurs became extinct, tell us "they didn't become extinct, they evolved into birds"?"
Are you giving an example, or are you defending the 'why still monkeys?!' argument?
If you are doing the latter for some reason - the equivalent, using the family example, would be a case where one's parents'/grandparents' siblings died out, so there are no cousins (ie, no 'monkeys'). What's the problem?
Posted by: Dustin | February 28, 2006 1:02 AM
I agree. The idea that all of the life on this planet shares a common descent brought about by genetic variation in the presence of selective pressures wasn't obvious.
And that's why Charles Darwin is in my book right next to Albert Einstein.
But seriously, dude, you need to get over yourself. If I poffered this as my doctoral thesis: "Despite the overwhelming experimental evidence supporting the Riemann Hypothesis, I cannot prove it, and it is therefore false", I'd be ridiculed, and I'd deserve it.
Posted by: Robert S. | February 28, 2006 1:10 AM
So how come respectable paleontologists, when asked why the dinosaurs became extinct, tell us "they didn't become extinct, they evolved into birds"?
This sort of reasoning and this depth of misinformation makes me fear for our children's future.
Paleontologist's who think dinosaurs didn't become extinct?
This explains why folks like Behe and Ham find such a credulous audience.
Posted by: Nathaniel | February 28, 2006 1:12 AM
JR, All of the species of dinosaurs that were around during the Mesozoic are extinct, but birds share enough characteristics with their therapod ancestors that some (many? most?) paleontologists classify them as dinosaurs. At least, that was the current picture about ten years ago, when I was eight and dino-obsessive. It's more a question of terminology than anything else - unless you're saying that humans are monkeys?
Posted by: Dustin | February 28, 2006 1:21 AM
That's also come a pretty good way of answering the Third Creationist Dogma: "I believe in microevolution, but a moth is always a moth".
Posted by: Dustin | February 28, 2006 1:23 AM
WTH? Was that some kind of freudian slip? I didn't type that! Let's try that again:
That's also a pretty good way of answering the Third Creationist Dogma: "I believe in microevolution, but a moth is always a moth".
There. All better.
Posted by: Skemono | February 28, 2006 1:35 AM
So, if there's no empirical support for "intelligent input" being a mechanism of evolution, how do you know that it is one?
Perhaps the answer is just 'obvious', and I am missing something--perhaps if you cared to define what exactly "intelligent input" is, and what it does to further evolution that the mechanisms which do have empirical support, do not?
Posted by: Geoffrey Brent | February 28, 2006 1:46 AM
Idlemind - right you are. Newtonian mechanics was *not* 'obvious' in 1600, but very much so by 1900 - because 'obvious' is very easily influenced by peer pressure.
Posted by: Davis | February 28, 2006 2:01 AM
Rightly so; unfortunately, professional mathematicians are able to get away with it in published articles (and let me tell you, it frequently is very highly non-obvious to mere mortals).
Apparently I just couldn't help myself -- I actually just responded to some of the ignorance in the comments on radar's post.
Posted by: Alejandro | February 28, 2006 5:21 AM
"An eternal universe is not possible either. You cannot count to infinity. No matter how long you count you will always have a finite set of numbers. Likewise, you cannot have an infinite series of events into the past. You would never reach a beginning, because no matter how long you traveled, you would only traverse a finite set of events. Even worse though, for the universe to reach the present. There being no beginning at all, there is no hope of reaching the present as it is preceded by an infinite series of events and there is no starting point to begin to try and cross this series."
Actually, this is not such a silly argument as some commentators thought. It is a fallacy, of course, but one that even Kant made. See here, on the "Thesis" side. Of course mathematics has progressed since Kant and now we can confidently assert that and show why the argument is not valid (Bertrand Russell does a great job in Our knowledge of the external world), but it's not as mindlessly stupid as most creationist's arguments.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 28, 2006 7:50 AM
nice rifle, too. Jesus has style.
Posted by: Orac | February 28, 2006 8:04 AM
Maybe in anti-Semitic Middle Eastern nations you could, but not elsewhere. If you look at the credentials of most Western "historians" who are Holocaust deniers, you will almost always find that they are in fact not trained historians at all (David Irving, for example).Posted by: CousinoMacul | February 28, 2006 8:38 AM
The infinity argument sounds to me a lot like the "Achilles and the Tortise" paradox I learned about back in pre-Calculus. Unfortunately for Mr. Infinity, the way I was taught it was as an exercise to prove that the paradox was in fact a fallacy. Sorry infinty!
Posted by: Keith Douglas | February 28, 2006 8:42 AM
The "infinite series" argument has a version also called the Kalam Cosmological Argument, though it is usually put in terms of a series of causes and effects. It is still taken seriously by some philosophers of religion, appallingly. Kant, on the other hand, was mathematically crippled but lived in an out of the way part of the world, so we can somewhat forgive. (Repulsive force needed to keep the solar system from collapsing? Someone doesn't understand Newton's second law ...)
Posted by: BronzeDog | February 28, 2006 8:45 AM
Funny, I didn't know that they could store a lack of imagination in the evidence locker.
Posted by: PaulC | February 28, 2006 8:59 AM
I thought the secret was to say each number twice as fast as its predecessor.Man, I have been doing it the hard way.
Posted by: Dan S. | February 28, 2006 9:12 AM
To infinity - and beyond!
* * *
Can we get pop stars supporting evolution? On TV? In 30-second spots repeated frequently? Possibly in a way that is both catchy and set to music? Granted, such an approach has nothing to do with good science, but 1) it would probably be fairly effective - as measured by blunt survey instruments, on a very limited basis - and 2) I much rather have that in my head than the Jessica Simpson 'These bites are made for poppin'' song-version . . .
Posted by: Dan S. | February 28, 2006 9:17 AM
"An amazing carnival: Darwin is Dead."
Do not mess with Zombie Darwin! For he is angry and seeks BRAINS!
Oh, wait . . . darn! No, no, you were supposed to go after the creationists! Get away! Get awa. .y . .y. yargh! [crunching moist smacky noises . . . ]
Posted by: Teophobus Atheist | February 28, 2006 9:58 AM
The concept of «fractal»... was "obvious" in 1500? I don't think so. The same for entropy, critical mass, transfinite numbers, relativity, quantum theory, homotecy, etc.
Posted by: BronzeDog | February 28, 2006 10:03 AM
[Insert statement including "obvious" and "Earth was flat"]
Posted by: darukaru | February 28, 2006 10:07 AM
You fool, there's no brains there! Now we're all doomNO CARRIERPosted by: ajay | February 28, 2006 10:14 AM
Yep, it's the old "if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" argument. I laugh every time I see it.
Or just ask them "If America was settled by Europeans, how come there are still Europeans?"
Posted by: Skeptico | February 28, 2006 10:57 AM
Someone should submit a Flying Spaghetti Monster post for their next carnival.
Posted by: wamba | February 28, 2006 11:04 AM
Sounds almost like two mosquitos in a mud hole...Posted by: Dan D | February 28, 2006 11:20 AM
Great responses everyone. Love the ones about cousins and Europeans as responses to the Why are there still monkeys? Fallacy.
Posted by: BronzeDog | February 28, 2006 11:44 AM
Stave it off, 1 2 3, and now you can count to three.
Posted by: rhatcher | February 28, 2006 2:06 PM
I'm amused by the unnoticed irony in the very first line of the first enty:
Ah, okay. So when did "God" get created, and from what and whence?
What? God is eternal? And came from nothing? And he created the universe? I always want to ask these types "Why not just cut out the middle man^Uentity?"...
Posted by: James R | February 28, 2006 6:38 PM
What? Are those people retarded? The sheer numbers of these people is frightening. Good for a laugh but they really believe in their take on science. If they had just thought it through they would have realized that they also discredited nearly every field of scientific study. I can't wait till they go after mathematics. Afterall 1+1 doesn't always = 2
JIM
Posted by: mark | February 28, 2006 9:52 PM
If'n those little toy poodles come from the big poodles, why come thar still big poodles?
Posted by: BronzeDog | February 28, 2006 10:05 PM
Too late.
Posted by: schoolgirl | March 5, 2006 12:13 PM
It really annoys me when young people try do disprove the theory of evolution. In my opinion its not a theory at all but a proven peice of science that should be stuffed up disbeliever's a***s. I think its totally unacceptable to teach Intelligent Design theories in school. I may only be in secondry school, but I'm intelligent enough to know "if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" is absolute b****x.
But I'm not against organised religion. If you like it go for it. I just don't like the fact it brainwashes people. If there was no religion, there would be no wars, only science.
I'm sorry if my views offend anyone but THERE IS NO GOD. GET OVER IT!
Posted by: GOD | April 26, 2007 4:16 AM
FUK U ALL..IM GOD AND YH DER IS A A THING CALLED RELIGEON..I INVETED IT AND MY SON JESUS CARRIED IT ON..READ THE BIBLE FOR ONCE AND STOP TAKIN BULLSHIT STORIES UP OF HUMANS EVLOLVING FROM MONKEYS..THERE IS MORE CHANCE US EVOLVING FROM DUKCKS THEN FUCKING MONKEYS..STAY SAFE.GOD.X.
Posted by: GOD | April 26, 2007 4:21 AM
FUK U ALL..IM GOD AND YH DER IS A A THING CALLED RELIGEON..I INVETED IT AND MY SON JESUS CARRIED IT ON..READ THE BIBLE FOR ONCE AND STOP TAKIN BULLSHIT STORIES UP OF HUMANS EVLOLVING FROM MONKEYS..THERE IS MORE CHANCE US EVOLVING FROM DUKCKS THEN FUCKING MONKEYS..STAY SAFE.GOD.X.
Posted by: John Danley | May 3, 2007 1:03 PM
Why is it that creationists have no concept of gradualism?
Posted by: Steve_C (Secular Elitist) FCD | May 3, 2007 1:10 PM
Who knew god was so nuts?
Posted by: Peter McGrath | May 3, 2007 1:18 PM
Has it really taken them 125 year to notice he's shuffled off this mortal coil? What a dim lot.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | May 3, 2007 3:04 PM
I guess God curses a lot, types in all caps, and can't spell. Maybe this means we should all be a lot more respectful and deferential to unsupervised 11-year-olds in chatrooms.
Posted by: Monado | May 4, 2007 11:05 AM
Ajay, my response to "why are there still monkeys?" is "I dunno. Did your uncle die when you were born?"
Posted by: edirne | September 25, 2008 3:18 PM
thank you so much
Posted by: chat | September 25, 2008 3:20 PM
danke shurrn
Posted by: şömine | September 25, 2008 3:21 PM
thanks
Posted by: sohbet | September 25, 2008 3:22 PM
yes to all
Posted by: chat | November 16, 2008 9:47 PM
thanks