by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Years ago, I wrote "atheist" on Twitter, and one cautioned me about using that word because I risked "calling down the thunder". We know that they can be ornery cusses even on their good days, but I was unaware of the intellectual prowess and wisdom of The Mighty Atheist™, dwarfing that of a mere theist. What I had yet to learn, however, is that they also have super powers that are even magical at times. Now I know better. Christians and creationists, I hope you heed this warning! Graphic modified from Clker clipart As with other super powers, those of The Mighty Atheist™ are difficult to categorize. Not all atheists and evolutionists have the same powers to the same degree, and there is no special school for gifted atheists under a professor so they can develop their abilities. Like logical fallacies, powers often blend and overlap. Let's saddle up and ride over yonder to Deception Pass where the atheists, atheopaths, anti-crea
Comments
For example, when evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins points out that the Discovery Institute has offered for peer review not one single paper which attempts to falsify natural selection, anyone who echoes this is immediately accused of adopting his trademark tactic of belittling religion—as if statements of fact are merely another form of attack.
PZ Myers goes out of his way to draw creationist's ire, because it's his chosen method of putting the spotlight on some extremely bad ideas. If he only made his feelings known behind closed doors, he'd be accused of hiding behind those who are already on his side. But when he publicly states his position, he is accused of intolerance. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.
Perhaps this is indicative of his polar opposites on the creation side, that they would simply prefer him to to say nothing at all. Put up or shut up. But what gets forgotten, is his invitation to publish the evidence, that there is a problem with any one of the myriad data sets which comprise evolution by natural selection, is a challenge open to anyone and everyone. There is no clause which says only creationists hold this responsibility.
If a scientist who happens to be an evolutionary biologist, suddenly discovered a problem of the magnitude which creationists insist exists, with the theory, he would establish this by showing in repeated experiments and by gathering new, compelling evidence that there was something for the rest of the scientific community to look at. Not a biologist in the world would reject his findings, if they were presented in a format which was open to scrutiny and peer review, if the correct procedures were met.
And so the cry goes out, that it is the process itself which precludes new evidence. That there is a culture of silence among legitimate scientists, for fear of being branded foolish; to suppress the evidence so as not to jeopardise funding and tenure. While I am aware that some on the creationist side genuinely try to avoid this kind of conspiracy theory dead end, what I have yet to see, in all my time looking into this, is anyone from the pro-Intelligent Design lobby, explain to me what they understand the scientific method to be, and how they feel in this particular case it has been usurped by an atheistic agenda or, indeed, any kind of malpractice.
Meanwhile, they pay no heed to the fact that thousands of scientists around the world, who have studied biology all of their professional life, still believe in God. This includes many high ranking members of the Catholic church—who for all their sins in covering up child rape and money laundering, never stoop so low as to suggest that nature, in all it's incredible complexity, is beyond our understanding; that in order to be a good person, one must believe in things that are not true.
Nor do creationists seem even remotely embarrassed by the ever increasing list of discoveries that independently confirm that natural selection is the method by which a whole raft of biological processes function. They almost seem to believe that if they pretend they haven't read anything which refutes their claims, it'll eventually go away and stop being true, simply because they don't accept the facts.
Many creationists insist that, prime among their supposedly surprised evidence, is that not a single organism has ever been observed evolving; that evolution is not an empirical science, because it assumes that evolution can only occur over long time scales.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair
newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
There are many other such examples of creationists crying foul, of being silenced from the debate, only to reveal, in their determination to find a controversy where none exists, that it is they who close down comment threads, post-edit articles, block email addresses and generally acting exactly as they accuse others of behaving.
Each time that this has gone as far as a court room, creationism has been shown to be as fundamentally flawed as it ever was. Each new reiteration of the same creationist ideas have been repeatedly shown to have no basis in fact. Or to quote the Bush appointed Judge John Jones, recommended to the bar by Rick Santorum, who presided over the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere relabelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory", who also noted that pro-ID witnesses at the trial were "marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath".
pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
So if PZ Myers occasionally loses his temper with people who believe that this kind of behaviour is how you win a scientific argument, while I can't condone anyone resorting to personal attacks on someone's religious beliefs, it might be worth remembering that believing something and proving something are two very different things. Anyone who insists to the contrary has all of their work ahead of them in convincing me to think as they do, no matter how much of a valid point they might have about the modus operandi of individuals, such as PZ, who occasionally lose their cool with people who don't want to listen.
There are a couple of things that I want to say, however. First, the "peer review" business. Creationists have been blackballed from peer review for a very long time, and yet, Creationist scientists are able to be published, so it is not like they have nothing to offer, or do not have valid scientific credentials. Also, I want to say that there is abundant scientific evidence against evolution available. I link to several of them in my apologetics links on this site, and have articles on my other site at www.piltdownsuperman.com.
I hope my response is not a complete disappointment.
I'll give you a starting point. IF you really want to consider the evidence in the first place, begin with the articles at my site, www.piltdownsuperman.com.
But since you're concerned with activist atheism and that sort of thing, I have serious doubts that you actually want such evidence.
Still, you can check some articles at www.piltdownsuperman.com, as well as following many of the links to their sources for further information.