Answers In Genesis is a Christian apologetics ministry, which pretends that there’s good science behind the ideas that the universe is only six thousand years old, Darwinian evolution by natural selection is impossible and doesn’t explain the complexity of life, and so forth. They’re also responsible for the Creation Museum in Ohio, in which it is demonstrated, among other things, that dinosaurs and men were totally running around having a great time together a few millennia ago, and the water from Noah’s flood was definitely what created the Grand Canyon in about a month. Yep.
Some guy posting on their site asks Why Would an Evolutionist Become a Doctor? Which is as good an excuse as any to speculate for a moment on why the fundamentalists and creationists so persistently and wilfully misunderstand the arguments they think they’re countering, keep repeating numerous old canards years since debunked, and basically don’t listen to a damn thing anyone tries to explain to them.
It’s not even trying to change their mind about their own ideas which seems a lost cause – so many of them don’t even have the shakiest clue of what the theory of evolution actually is, or even what science actually is, which is part of what makes the continuous disagreement over this so frustrating.
So although I’m utterly fascinated that you’ve never seen a dog give birth to a cat, and although it’s charming that you think there’s something profound to this fact, the fact is that an “evolutionist” would consider such an event just as unlikely as you. If that actually verifiably occurred, or if strange half-whale half-cow “transitional” creatures were observed, evolution would not have a clue how to explain this, and everyone in the field of biology would be staggered, astonished, and baffled (though no doubt fascinated by this new and entirely unfamiliar area of study that’s been opened up).
Things like that aren’t what evolution says should happen at all, they don’t follow in any way from any of the established theory, and if you’re going to take a forceful stand against evolution, that should matter to you. If you keep blindly blustering at straw men, you’re going to look as ridiculous as those people lambasting paediatricians for the sick things they’re doing to our children. You’re missing the point in just as staggeringly vast a way.
If anyone knows, leave me a comment letting me know who I’m (probably mis-) quoting when I say that if I misunderstood evolution the way creationists do, I wouldn’t believe it either. A lot of them genuinely aren’t “anti-evolution” in any important way – they’re anti some other crazy bullshit idea, without any real conception of what evolution is for them to oppose.
Anyway, the reason I bring all this up is that this article I was talking about boringly repeats yet again the tedious fallacy that evolutionary processes can be equated with moral decisions. If you are persuaded by the evidence that replication by random variation in a competitive environment is the most likely explanation for the observable varieties in living organisms in the world, then it apparently necessarily follows that those specific creatures which are “fitter” in some evolutionary sense than their rivals are also morally “better”, and biology is the only thing that can give us any ideas of “goodness”.
What fucktarded bollocks.
Look, science is about studying the way the world works, identifying things that happen, and examining the question of how they happen (or why, but that’s not a distinction I’m interested in getting into right now). It’s about facts. Evolution is a fact. It’s not like we haven’t observed it taking place quite a bit. And even if for some reason you don’t buy that idea, you can at least grasp that the theory is a description of what scientists believe happens.
This has bugger all to do with what may or may not be good.
The idea that whatever’s going on in the world, according to the results of scientists’ research and study into said world, is something that scientists “hold dear” to such an extent that they should insist upon it as being a set of guiding moral principles, is inanely ridiculous. And creationists know this. It’s been explained so often that there’s really no grounds left for claiming ignorance of any rebuttal.
What this article is claiming is exactly equivalent to expecting adherents of the theory of gravity to nail everything they can to the floor to stop objects from blasphemously moving upwards. Things tend to fall “down”; this is just an artefact of how the universe works. Any moral decisions are an irrelevancy in noticing this trend. And when there is replication among a population of entities, mutations in replication that cause variation among them, and differential fitness providing competitive pressures based on specific attributes of those entities, there will happen to occur processes of Darwinian natural selection. Morality is a whole different study. Encouraging something not entirely in line with these Darwinian principles is no more “evil” than doing star jumps and yelling “Suck it, Newton!”
Doctors who acknowledge evolution aren’t “working against the driving force of nature”. They’re dealing with the Shit that proverbially Happens, and trying to make things better. Not more natural, not more in line with the laws of thermodynamics; those can look after themselves. Just more appropriate and desirable, as humans of all philosophies collectively and tentatively understand such things.