Ovid (publius_ovidius) wrote,


This is day four of my back being out. It's slowly getting better, but it still hurts to stand up. This is ridiculous.

On an amusing note, have you seen Science Against Evolution? It's a hilarious Web site. It's not just the "my nephew made this" look and feel; it's how the people who created this have managed to put together a laughable set of "theses" to support their idiocy. Of the two officers of this non-profitr organization with a listed background, their science background consists of electrical and civil engineering. There's no anthropology, astronomy, genetics or anything else which might actually relate to the subject matter at hand (astronomy counts, but it would be a long digression).

Here are the "theses" numbered 15 through 17:

  1. "Abiogenesis" is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
  2. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
  3. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.

Number 15 is almost correct. Strike the work "belief" and replace it with "hypothesis". When they have such a subtle twist on a straightforward definition, you know something's amiss. I wonder if this was deliberate? Their general lack of sophistication suggests to me that it's not.

Number 16 is also subtly twisted. The theory of evolution depends on life being created as a starting point. Many religious people believe a supernatural entity created life and let evolution take over (just as the Catholic church). Catholics don't require abiogenesis as a starting point for evolution. I wonder why these people aren't telling you this?

Of course, their subtle psychological attack in number 15, combined with their distortion of point 16 leads to the outright lie in point number 17. Are they cognizant of this lie? I doubt it, so maybe it's not a lie per se, but this inability to reason about something is the sad state our education system has left so many people in.

Of course, many who support the theory evolution are often no better.

I will, however, give the people behind the "Science Against Evolution" Web site credit for at least understanding that there's a difference between the origin of life and the evolution of life. Most creationists I've talked to don't even understand that.

Tags: pseudo-science, religion, science
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded