Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense.
He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species once life began (it also has nothing to do with the question of how life originally began, only concerning itself once that process, known as abiogenesis, concluded).
He further asserts that evolutionists "believe that biological organisms could produce offspring of higher complexity simply by means of natural selection." Not exactly; in the short term, this is incorrect, but in the longer term it is so. Obviously a dinosaur never gave birth to a bird, a favorite caricature from the creationist loons, but over millions of years, a certain subset of dinosaurs grew faster, lighter, developed feathers and finally took wing. When given a longer time frame, that provided by the great age of the earth, natural selection does lead to the rise of entire classes of new species in all the varied kingdoms of life.
Hovind ends with a triumphal assertion of the supremacy of creationism over the godless and "hypocritical" "religion" of evolution, finishing with the worn-out proverb that "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." Aside from the dubious assertion that atheists are fools to a man, evolution is not a religion. Evolution makes no assertions about God. Religions are based on faith in the absence of evidence while evolution is part of science, based on evidence and theories formed upon endless facts. Evolution requires no faith or miracles. Simply open your eyes to the abundant evidence (see Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne for a good overview of the evidence) and let the blinders fall away. You will be amazed by what you find when you do.
The only fool here is "Dr. Dino".
Link to the full article is here: http://www.drdino.com/evolution-miracle-of-miracles/
Thanks to Daniel Jonas for bringing it to my attention.
He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species once life began (it also has nothing to do with the question of how life originally began, only concerning itself once that process, known as abiogenesis, concluded).
He further asserts that evolutionists "believe that biological organisms could produce offspring of higher complexity simply by means of natural selection." Not exactly; in the short term, this is incorrect, but in the longer term it is so. Obviously a dinosaur never gave birth to a bird, a favorite caricature from the creationist loons, but over millions of years, a certain subset of dinosaurs grew faster, lighter, developed feathers and finally took wing. When given a longer time frame, that provided by the great age of the earth, natural selection does lead to the rise of entire classes of new species in all the varied kingdoms of life.
Hovind ends with a triumphal assertion of the supremacy of creationism over the godless and "hypocritical" "religion" of evolution, finishing with the worn-out proverb that "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." Aside from the dubious assertion that atheists are fools to a man, evolution is not a religion. Evolution makes no assertions about God. Religions are based on faith in the absence of evidence while evolution is part of science, based on evidence and theories formed upon endless facts. Evolution requires no faith or miracles. Simply open your eyes to the abundant evidence (see Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne for a good overview of the evidence) and let the blinders fall away. You will be amazed by what you find when you do.
The only fool here is "Dr. Dino".
Link to the full article is here: http://www.drdino.com/evolution-miracle-of-miracles/
Thanks to Daniel Jonas for bringing it to my attention.
And to think, I call myself "Dr. Dino"...At least I am a paleontologist and a dedicated evolutionist. I just have to apologize now for any possible connection to this other individual. Ah well.
ReplyDeleteAt least when you call yourself "Dr. Dino", you aren't grossly misrepresenting your education as Hovind does. Your Ph.D lends itself far more to that nickname than Hovind's. His is something like "Christian education," then he has the gall to call himself "Dr. Dino" as though he's a paleontologist. Fraud all round.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could engage an audience like that man, or like Hitler; either one would work. I would, however, hopefully use my powers for "good."
ReplyDeleteI just read his article, and he confused the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and the present theory on Steller Formation. Pathetic.
ReplyDeleteExactly, Joe. A common creationist tactic, conflating evolution with abiogenesis, the big bang, etc as though they were one and the same. The ignorance of the topic is apparent, but to a great degree it is willful.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I admit I am not completely up to speed on the most current arguments surrounding evo vs. creation, however, as I recall, there are several giant gaps in evolutionary theory, just as there is a 'lack of evidence' supporting creationism. Based on this, I disagree that evolution - at least for many - is not a religion as it requires a great deal of faith to overcome these gaps.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, please don't lump all of us creationists into some ignorant, backwards, science-hating group. The God I believe in works in natural ways, using the laws of the universe he created to perform 'miracles'.
I for one support science and only disagree in that evolution is referred to as fact rather than theory from the scientific community. The bottom line here is that evo's believe they can debunk creation, which 'proves' there is no God and they can live life how they choose without consequence.
Conversely, many creationist try to disprove evolution thinking this will require all to believe in God. This is foolish as proof would then require no faith, rendering their own religion useless.
For me (a gap-theorist), the issue is not whether earth was created in 6 days, but more that I believe He could. To that end, I believe that if all the scientific mysteries were revealed to us today, we would see that there is much truth in both theories, but as of right now, neither hold the full picture.
True believers should not fear science. In the archeological field, many recent finds support biblical events. Using this evidence to try to unequivically prove anyones's religion would be foolish.
While I am certainly in agreement with your statement that true believers shouldn't fear science, I cannot agree with much else, Anonymous. You claim that it is incorrect for me to lump you into the "ignorant, backwards, science-hating" group of creationists, but nothing you've said differs much from the talking points of mainline creationists. Please don't think that "ignorant" is meant as an insult unless it is combined with "willful." Then it is an insult. You freely confess your lack of knowledge as to the current state of the so-called evo-creo debate. I would love to know what these alleged "gaps" are in evolutionary theory that require "faith." Evolution is not a religion; religions are based on faith due to a lack of evidence while science makes assertions about the world based on good evidence.
ReplyDeleteEvolution has nothing to say about God, and to state that evolution somehow attempts to disprove the God Hypothesis (setting it up in opposition to creationism) is a statement made out of ignorance. Creationism contains no truth; it is a series of lies about the world based on a myth.
However, all that said, I do appreciate your statements that the use of archaeological evidence to "prove" one's religion is foolish. Proof requires no faith, as you point out. In that, you differ from most creationists, and I thank you for it.
Donald Prothero's "Evolution" covers a whole lot of the fossil evidence for evolution. Evolution, strictly speaking, is a fact...the theory has to do with the precise mechanisms by which evolution occurs. In many instances, these mechanisms are fairly clear, in others not so much. But that organisms evolve is undeniable...the changing resistance of certain bacteria to antibiotics is a case in point, and one that scares the hell out of hospitals nationwide.
ReplyDeleteBTW...the best definition of a fact in scientific usage is "a statement about nature that has been confirmed so many times that it is unreasonable to withhold assent." Strictly speaking, science doesn't deal in "TRUTH" but in approximations that approach it, and in some cases, have clearly come very near to what it may be...but even facts can change with additional evidence and newer observations. Science changes and adapts to these new bits of information...religion, it seems, seldom does.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most damaging words in the confrontation is the word "belief". Because it is used so widely by the religious, scientists probably ought not to use it. Prothero makes a point of saying "accept" rather than "believe" precisely because accept is more "provisional" than belief, and doesn't imply "truth." Prothero, btw, is not an atheist, and several notable paleontologists and geologists have been believers. And many (most?) mainstream denominations have managed to accept evolution while maintaining their own faith commitments. Only the more fundamentalist sects seem to have a problem, and one I think is mostly maintained by tele-evangelists so that they can continue to milk more money from the faithful. It may well be that the faithful are sheep...but they really need to be cautious about who the sheepherder is and what motivates them.
ReplyDelete