Monday, January 20, 2014

Evolution vs. Creationism: The Controversy?

Evolution: It is still hotly contested in America, to the point where the majority of Americans do not accept it as fact. In principle, it is a pretty basic concept: Change over a period of time, resulting in internal and external transformations, to put it in layman terms. If you've come here to hear an extensive report on Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, you can move on now. I'm not here to speak about this confirmed scientific phenomenon, but rather to talk about the controversy that exists on the dichotomy of the religious-based Creationism and the scientific-based Evolution. There's just one dilemma that currently faces those who assert there is a controversy between the two: There is no controversy... and there is either/or with Evolution and Creationism.

Evolution and Creationism are on two different wavelengths, and are easy to distinguish: One is a fact that has been studied, observed in action, verified, falsified and has been concluded to be an undeniable fact over and over again. And the other is Creationism. Those who advocate the "teach the controversy" are not interested in "controversy" but merely attempting to put their unproven religious nonsense on the same platform as scientific data and it is transparent. One of the biggest problems with Creationists is that they too often try to mislabel the Theory of Evolution as "Darwinism" in a thinly veiled effort to characterize it as an ideology or religion. You would think that individuals who value their relationship with, as they say, "a loving and caring Intelligent Designer", that they could actually make intelligent arguments that didn't consist of logical fallacies, deceptive wording, and blatant lies about science and the scientific method. You don't have to know how the model works, but as Neil Degrasse Tyson is quoted as saying: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

Another misconception that many in the ID movement love to play up about evolution is that it is intrinsically atheistic, leading it to be a tool to discriminate and to mold destructive ideologies and practices, such as Communism and Eugenics, respectively. And while the Theory of Evolution describes a process devoid of any divine influence, there is nothing in the model that points to or points away from such a being, or any kind for that matter. Evolution has nothing to do with Communism, as this is merely an ideology that replaces worship of a deity with that of the State or social system. Eugenics was a disgusting pseudo-scientific practice of discrimination and racial superiority. As Wendy Wright, CEO of the neoconservative group Concerned Women for America, pointed out in a very popular Youtube video debating prominent biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins, "Darwinism" was responsible for programs like Eugenics (on a sidenote: Richard Dawkins is a patient man... if you watch the video, you'll know what I mean). This is just one of many examples in which these intellectually dishonest individuals attempt to malign the field of science in order to bring themselves on par or to drag the credibility of the scientific method into the mud. As it is, we have too many people in this country that actually think there is a real controversy between Evolution and Creationism.


If it is not obvious by now, I do accept evolution as fact and denounce creationism as superstitious nonsense masquerading as pseudo-science, if barely that. When listened to, one can easily discover that there is no methodology associated with Creationism, no formulation of a hypothesis, experiments, evidence gathered, flaws discarded, falsifiable claims, and a conclusion that confirms the findings. When plucking and trimming away the bullshit, Creationism is reduced to one big ass argument from ignorance. Everything looks created and designed, therefore it was created and designed. There is no attempt to even apply the scientific method; they start with their conclusion and look for anything fits into their bias, disregarding anything that doesn't. But let me also state this: while I am an atheist, I can honestly attest that I became an atheist long before I even read up on Evolution. I don't need to be an atheist to accept Evolution as fact because it is independent of any belief system or lack of belief, which is why there are theists who also accept Evolution and atheists who don't.

To reiterate, there is no controversy with Evolution and Creationism because there is no logical or valid parallel between the two. Creationists know this, which is why they spend millions trying to poke holes in the flawed scientific method scientists use to discern fact from fiction while also trying to peddle their religion in a lab coat as legitimate curriculum that can be taught in school. This is why when demanding evidence for the validity of Creationism, the only arguments you can get would virtually work for any other religious movement looking to peddle their god into the public schools under the guise of "Intelligent Design". It is also why the entire notion of Creationism only hangs on what the Theory of Evolution cannot provide, such as an answer to how life began or what prompted the first life forms to evolve and adapt. There is nothing about Creationism that stands on its own, and proponents know this, which is why I cannot for the life of me understand why this nonsense is still toted as having some level of credence in a modern society.

No comments:

Post a Comment

7 Years Ago

Don't take it personal if I speak ill of your name Hate, then sad, is the my favorite method of rhythm You might as well accept the fu...