Showing one’side work is required even at the high school level, so this shouldn’t be a problem for someone with an advanced degree in Creation Science.
Not a very good argument from the Atheist Pig. This basically is an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. There is plenty of proof for evolution, it can be successfully argued without saying this guy with a PhD accepts it.
I took the cartoon a bit differently than you did, but your observation is indeed valid. I took it more to mean that creationists using the Bible to say evolution is wrong should “show their work”; and that quoting Bible verses doesn’t suffice.
I can see what you’re saying (rather than Bible verses creationists need to create a body of science that proves the Bible, rather than using Bible verses). One reason why I’d resist any appeal to authority is that specifically Ken Ham hires creationist PhDs like Georgia Purdum and Jason Lisle (who has since moved on).
The next step is a two tiered approach to evolution. To the ignorant, evolution is just heresy plain and simple. To the curious and educated evolution exists, but never innovates. God made everything perfect and then after the “fall” a limited subtractive evolution exists within “kinds”. Purdum in particular would point to evolution of animals that lose vision in caves. This is what Purdum and Ham call the evolutionary forest as opposed to the evolutionary tree. In reality this much evolution in the few thousand years of the ark on the creationist timeline is basically impossible.
Loss of vision by animals that don’t need it is a fantastic example of the way in which evolution actually works. The trouble with the creationist argument (calling anything they say an ‘argument’ is flattering) is that it assumes eyesight is a no-cost beneficial trait. It isn’t. There are several disadvantages to sight, including blood flow, maintenance, and especially protection. So if animals enter an environment where it’s not needed then they are able to gain back the valuable body resources by losing unnecessary eyesight. It’s adaptation at work, and shows how evolution doesn’t just head in the direction we regard as ‘progress’.
Evolution is for me an absolutely fascinating subject, and it’s sad that creationists miss out so much.
Troy
Perhaps I gave too concrete an example to explain the Ken Ham/Georgia Purdom evolution model.
Let me explain how it is alleged to work. Imagine each “created kind” (dog, cat, rodent, etc.) is created (from scratch) with a full deck of cards. So as the dog “kind” evolves into wolves, coyotes, jackals, some cards from this full deck are lost. Of course there is absolutely no evidence for this besides the Bible (so they didn’t show their work!) There is also evidence that animals of different so-called “kinds” are related. The reality of this is viewed with blind eyes, since it contradicts typically a very powerful childhood indoctrination.
Want to Respond to Bruce? Fire Away! If You Are a First Time Commenter, Please Read the Comment Policy Located at the Top of the Page.Cancel reply
Discover more from The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Showing one’side work is required even at the high school level, so this shouldn’t be a problem for someone with an advanced degree in Creation Science.
Not a very good argument from the Atheist Pig. This basically is an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. There is plenty of proof for evolution, it can be successfully argued without saying this guy with a PhD accepts it.
I took the cartoon a bit differently than you did, but your observation is indeed valid. I took it more to mean that creationists using the Bible to say evolution is wrong should “show their work”; and that quoting Bible verses doesn’t suffice.
I can see what you’re saying (rather than Bible verses creationists need to create a body of science that proves the Bible, rather than using Bible verses). One reason why I’d resist any appeal to authority is that specifically Ken Ham hires creationist PhDs like Georgia Purdum and Jason Lisle (who has since moved on).
The next step is a two tiered approach to evolution. To the ignorant, evolution is just heresy plain and simple. To the curious and educated evolution exists, but never innovates. God made everything perfect and then after the “fall” a limited subtractive evolution exists within “kinds”. Purdum in particular would point to evolution of animals that lose vision in caves. This is what Purdum and Ham call the evolutionary forest as opposed to the evolutionary tree. In reality this much evolution in the few thousand years of the ark on the creationist timeline is basically impossible.
Loss of vision by animals that don’t need it is a fantastic example of the way in which evolution actually works. The trouble with the creationist argument (calling anything they say an ‘argument’ is flattering) is that it assumes eyesight is a no-cost beneficial trait. It isn’t. There are several disadvantages to sight, including blood flow, maintenance, and especially protection. So if animals enter an environment where it’s not needed then they are able to gain back the valuable body resources by losing unnecessary eyesight. It’s adaptation at work, and shows how evolution doesn’t just head in the direction we regard as ‘progress’.
Evolution is for me an absolutely fascinating subject, and it’s sad that creationists miss out so much.
Perhaps I gave too concrete an example to explain the Ken Ham/Georgia Purdom evolution model.
Let me explain how it is alleged to work. Imagine each “created kind” (dog, cat, rodent, etc.) is created (from scratch) with a full deck of cards. So as the dog “kind” evolves into wolves, coyotes, jackals, some cards from this full deck are lost. Of course there is absolutely no evidence for this besides the Bible (so they didn’t show their work!) There is also evidence that animals of different so-called “kinds” are related. The reality of this is viewed with blind eyes, since it contradicts typically a very powerful childhood indoctrination.