In Part 1 we went over a portion of the painful to read creationist bullshit titled ““Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism in Not Logically Sound”. We saw the author commit the following fallacies: argument from ignornance, straw man and non sequitur. Today I continue dissecting this article to point out other areas where this guy’s brain fails him. I do not pretend to be able to capture them all.
Even if all the planets somehow formed themselves, all somehow staying in perfect orbit and possessing gravity, even take for granted that all the chemicals needed for life were so how there as well, by sheer happenstance, would it then be possible for billions of species to spontaneously come about, each with a male and female of each kind so that they could exist in the long run?
Ok first of all who told him that billions of species “spontaneously” came about? What part of evolving over millions and millions of years does this guy not understand? What’s spontaneous about that? Furthermore, is it true that all species “have a male and a female so they could exist in the long run”? Has he never heard of asexual reproduction? And if by “billions of species” he didn’t really mean all species, then what the hell is his argument? God created most species a certain way, but some others a different way? Why the hell would he do that? Let me explain it to you, you little confused pal, having evolved from a common ancestor all species have inherited certain traits that they share. Sexual reproduction has proven to be the most successful way of passing genetic information along, and that is why most species you’re referring to have a male and a female. Oh, and I assume he’s simply talking about animals when he says “species” because I don’t know if he really wants to extend his “argument” to plants and such, because then he would really be in trouble!
Even if this were possible, would the simplest of animals have been able to survive were it missing even one essential organ? Would human beings survive if one organ or cavity was missing or displaced, even after somehow being otherwise perfectly formed with no designer?
Where do you start here? The misconceptions are simply overwhelming. Evolution does not predict the instantaneous appearance of whole organs. Who ever said that the parent would have no eyes and the child would be born with two perfectly developed eyes? This is an embarrassing misunderstanding of the thing he’s trying to argue against. Organs don’t show up in young animals out of nowhere, ready to be used for the new purpose. This is another straw man attack. He’s twisting the theory of evolution into something he can easily ridicule. And then he falls under the old “what good is a half an eye/wing/heart” argument which has been made countless times and debunked countless times, so I won’t even dignify it with an answer. He himself is a prime example of what good a half a brain is!
The contention of atheists, that life simply adapted to the conditions it found itself in is also irrational, as were this to be the case we’d have animals that could solely subsist on snow and ice in some regions.
This is just stupid, pure and simple! First of all plenty of religious evolutionary biologists agree that life forms adapt to their environment. This is not an atheist thing, it’s a biology thing. I guess in this guy’s mind every evolutionary biologist must be an atheist, which just goes to prove my half a brain comment above. Evolution does not say that animals will adapt to EVERY condition of nature. They do die out when it is impossible for them to adapt, that’s why you don’t find animals that solely exist on snow or ice. I guess the caloric intake from snow and ice cannot support a large animal, but I don’t want to get technical because it is not my place to get technical. I am not a biologist!
Of the many philosophic and scientific arguments brought forth for the existence of the Divine, three stand out. The anthropic argument contends that the universe is too complex to have no Creator. This is in effect the central point of this column, although explained in a more common manner. The cosmological argument maintains that finite matter (original matter, which was clearly finite) cannot create a universe that is greater than itself. Especially compelling is the teleological argument, that the existence of a Creator can be seen from the fact that the universe works in perfect harmony, as would a giant machine. Gravity, orbits, chemical atmospheres and all other ingredients needed for life to exist come together in unison to allow such existence to happen. An enormous machine that works like clockwork needs to have a Creator.
The first argument is a clear argument from ignorance. It says “The universe is too complex. I am not smart enough to understand it. I cannot answer why or how it works. However, I must have an answer, because I am not mature enough to accept that I don’t know. Open the door for the Sky Daddy”. Of course this is complete and utter bullshit. It is not an explanation, it is a childish attempt to deal with one’s lack of knowledge and security by making up a big guy in the sky. For little kids this big guy is called Santa Claus. For this guy it is god! The second one makes no sense to me, I don’t know what he means by original matter, those words are completely foreign to me so I cannot give an opinion. The third one is just an argument from incredulity, it’s too beautiful, to preciese. I cannot believe it evolved. What all these arguments show is simply that this person is arbitrarily choosing the answer that makes him feel better, more comfortable. He’s not looking for the truth, he’s looking for a nice answer. Well pal, reality is not always nice.
The atheist would also do well to read Anthony Flew’s latest book, “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.” For decades, Flew was one of the leading proponents of atheism. But he eventually decided to give everything a second look and found that all he’d believed and so vociferously advocated for so long was wrong. Upon real analysis, he found that there is, in fact, proof of the Divine.
I don’t know the real story regarding Anthony Flew, but even if it had happened the way this cretin says, what does that mean? Why should we accept that he was wrong the first time around, when he was an atheist, and right the second time around? What if it was the other way around? What if he’d been right all along and made a mistake at the very end? What if he’d been wrong both times? Here this guy commits yet another fallacy, the argument from authority. At best the above, if true, shows that one guy got dupped latter in life, or that he simply changed his mind, nothing else. What about all the christians who gave up religion and became atheists? It is exactly the same thing in reverse.
Just because someone recants does not mean that they made the right choice, regardless who that someone is.
Unfortunately, there is more nonsense coming from this fool. It seems there may be need for a Part 3 to cover all his stupidity. Please bear with me.
Bill Maher is smarter than Ben Stein! He’s funnier, better looking and has more hair than Ben Stein (Ad Hominem I know, but I’m not making an argument just ridiculing Mr. Stein!) . His voice does not induce coma like Mr. Stein’s. So, I think, Religulous will kick Expelled’s ass worse than Jim Carey did to himself on “Me, Myself and Irene”. Bill Maher would probably kick Ben Stein’s ass on a fistfight too, not that it matters anyway
This is one of the coolest things yet to happen to Skepdude. A while ago I had written a post in regards to a retarded article by the (Un)Discovery Institute in which they made the “argument” that because cars were designed so were people. Stupid right? Anyway, I e-mailed the SGU Rogues and they did in fact put up a new SGU 5×5 episode, #23, where they talk about this and at the very end, Evan quotes me. THE SGU QUOTES ME! How freaking cool is that! Such an honor is undeserved, I can tell you that much, but much appreciated. This is equivalent to a religious person being spoken to by God, except that these folks actually exist.
Steven also made a clarification in the podcast. In my original blog entry I have written that Evolution is not a guided process. He pointed out that it is in fact a guided process, in the sense that it is not random, it is not picking traits willy nilly, but is in fact “choosing” the traits better suited for the organism to survive. I agree, in the sense he describes it. However, when speaking to creationists, the word guided to them means consciously guided. That is the sense that I was using it in my original post. In that sense Evolution is not (consciously) guided. No one is willingly picking traits to favor. They propagate because they are beneficial not because someone or something is making a decision to pick them. So I guess, in our respective interpretations of the word “guided” we are both right.
Anyone who has ever debated a creationist has heard the same arguments over and over again. This time, they were presented by a certain Yomin Postelnik at the Canada Free Press in a most ridiculous article called “Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism in Not Logically Sound” a lengthy piece, which uses many many words to convey precisely nothing! Mr. Postelnik opens his article with the following:
One of the beautiful aspects of self evident truths is that they can be proven on both the simplest and the most complex of levels. By contrast, to make an argument for what is in fact an illogical fallacy, one must use plenty of skill, sophistry and remain beholden to a dogmatic protection of what is really an illogical position.
Now how seriously are we supposed to take someone who starts off with such loads of crap? First of all, a self evident truth does not need to be proven at any level, let alone “complex” ones, and if such need arises then said truth is not self evident, so what in the hell is this guy really saying? His “logic” is failing him within his first sentence. Second, what in the hell is an “illogical” fallacy? I have heard of logical fallacies, but illogical ones are news to me! A “Logical Fallacy” means a failing of logic, so by extension an illogical fallacy must mean a failing of illogic, which would make it logical, right? Thirdly, you don’t make an argument for a fallacy, that statement makes no sense, because a fallacy is itself an argument, albeit an invalid one. One cannot make an argument about an argument, but this is what this guy seems to think. Fourthly, one can commit a fallacy without being dogmatic. A fallacy is simply bad logic and it does not necessarily imply dogma. To make such assertion is quite infantile and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the basics of logic. But let’s not delve too long on the first paragraph, there is so much more to sink our teeth in the rest of this piece of workd.
Proof of a conscious Creator is readily available. The simplest proof (yet one that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively) is that a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn’t write itself or form randomly from the spill of a massive inkblot.
There we go again. Since this moron seems so fond of fallacies he may like to know that he just committed one himself, one that is very typical of cretinists creationists. It is the argument from ignorance, the “I’m too stupid to understand” one. It always amazes me how the inevitable rebuttal seems to escape these childish amateurs. If you are willing to stick to the logic of the above argument then you must explain the origins of your Creator, because by God he couldn’t have come into existence on his own. A Creator does not somehow build himself. And he claims no atheist has never been able to effectively counter his “argument”. I think I just did, twice. One, you’re too stupid to understand the real explanation and you reject it and replace it with an infantile explanation, your own version of Santa Claus. Secondly, your answer is only making matters worse as you are assuming the existence of a greatly greatly complex being to explain the existence of the universe, in effect replacing one mystery with an even bigger mystery. So what kind of bullshit answer is that?
No one in their right mind would claim that 10,000 hundred story buildings built themselves from randomness, even over time. Yet those who doubt the existence of a Creator believe that an entire universe, containing all of the billions of elements necessary for life to form, may have come about without a builder. As such, they give credence to billions of times more coincidences to having come about.
As a matter of fact no one has claimed that yet, that I am aware off, about the 10,000 hundred story buildings. What we have claimed though is that some even greater things were in fact not created by any intelligent being, such as, ohh I don’t know.. freaking mount Everest? You see, geology and plate tectonics can quite perfectly explain its creation, and no 100 story building in the world even comes close to Everest. So what does his argument prove? Absolutely nothing, because it is in fact another LOGICAL fallacy, a non sequitur ( I hope I spelled that correctly, my Latin is non existent!). The fact that some things are designed or created for a purpose does not imply that everything is created or designed for a purpose. And you cannot say that just because something less complex was designed then everything more complex must have been designed. Shoe laces were clearly designed, but they are so elementary that everything else, by the above logic, must have been designed including clouds and rain which are quite more complicated than shoe laces. Does this guy think there are little elves smoking in the mountains and making clouds? Who the hell knows!
They believe that not only did whole planets appear spontaneously, but also believe that the fact that these planets do not collide as meteors do, that they have gravity, that they contain the proper atmospheric conditions for life to take hold and contain sustenance to sustain this life all happened by mere fluke. Yet the same people would (rightly) denounce as preposterous the notion that the Egyptian pyramids built themselves. They would point to the structure and detailed design of these impressive inanimate objects. Yet they outrageously chalk up to coincidence billions upon billions of times more detail and design in all parts of life found in this universe.
Planets appeared spontaneously? Now, I hate to use definitions but Answers.com defines spontaneously as “Of one’s own free will: freely, voluntarily, willfully, willingly. Idioms: of one’s own accord, on one’s own volition.” I don’t know who this moron is consulting for his astronomical facts, but no one has ever made the claim that planets have a free will, or have ever done anything willfully. This idiot keeps exposing the limits of his intelligence. To my knowledge, no astronomer ever has claimed that any planet in the universe is a “fluke”. This is an outright lie, a made up enemy. It is in fact yet another logical fallacy, the one known as the “Straw Man”, make up your own enemy, put whatever words you want in his mouth so that you may attack him easily. Furthermore, who ever claimed that all these other planets “that they contain the proper atmospheric conditions for life to take hold and contain sustenance to sustain this life”? As far as I know only one planet has the proper atmospheric conditions for life and we happen to be having this debate on it’s surface. If this genius is aware of other planets with an atmosphere similar to Earth’s he should let the rest of the world know about it and who knows maybe win a Nobel for his troubles.
While there are complex proofs of the Divine, some dating back to the philosophical writings of Plato and others using modern science, the most clearly logical concepts are all readily apparent and simple. An entire world does not create itself.
Where are these proofs he alludes to? Is he talking about Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity? Ah, yes he falls back upon the “I’m too stupid” line of reasoning. An entire world does not create itself. Of course not, no one ever claimed that. Does an entire Creator create himself?
I am getting a headache by this guy’s unending assault to reason and logic, and this entry is getting too long anyway. Stay tuned for Part 2 and (hopefully not) Part 3 in the days to come. In the mean time you can head over to the website and read his whole article. But I must warn you, without a break in between paragraphs for sarcastic and logical remarks, you run major risks. You were warned, proceed at your own risk!