The question remains: is Gov. Perry right?
What follows is a straightforward, four-step refutation of the theory of evolution. The steps are easy to remember, and make a nice little cadence when spoken with a little rhythm: First Law, Second Law, Fossils and Genes. Armed with this truth, go forth and conquer.
Before we even start, we ought to notice that, if evolution is true, there would be no way to know it. Because evolution teaches that everything that exists is the product of the random collision of atoms, this logically includes the thoughts I am thinking about evolution. But if my thoughts are the product of the random collision of atoms, there is no reason to think that any of them are true — they just are.
No one "random collision of atoms" can be said to be truer than another, any more than one randomly generated Rorschach ink blot can be said to be more correct than another.
As J.B.S. Haldane famously observed, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
All right, here we go.
First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. By logical extension, then, matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe.
What this means, then, is that science simply has no explanation for the most basic question that could possibly be asked: why is there something rather than nothing?
Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have an answer to this question; evolutionists do not.
When you see a turtle on a fence post, what's the one thing you know? Somebody put him there. When you see a world hanging in space, what's the one thing you know? Someone hung it there.
It's futile to resort to the big bang theory, as some evolutionists are wont to do. They say they have an explanation for the origin of the universe: it began when a ball of incredibly dense matter exploded and flung the universe into existence. Okay, fine. Now: where did that incredibly dense ball of matter come from?
Even Aristotle saw that behind the existence of the universe had to be what he called a Prime Mover or an Unmoved Mover. If everything is the result of secondary causes, nothing would ever actually happen. Some great power had to be a primary cause of life, motion, energy, and existence.
If you walk into an office and you see one of those toys with the steel balls swinging left to right, right to left, virtually endlessly, the one thing you will know for an absolute certainty is that some force outside that toy had to start the whole thing by lifting the first ball and releasing it to clack against the others. The process you observe could not possibly have started all by itself.
Creation Science and Intelligent Design theory offers a Prime Mover, evolution does not.
Bryan Fischer, Rightly Concerned 67 Comments
[8/31/2011 3:18:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 68
Submitted By: anon87311
1 2 3
There is no logical requirement for the first cause to be an intelligent entity. The clacky ball desk toy could have been set in motion by an earth tremor for instance. No intelligent intervention required. This is just God of the gaps on a grand scale. It's still a fallacious and dishonest ploy. But that is Bryan's stock in trade after all.
8/31/2011 9:51:22 AM
"[H]anging in space"...? He must not have heard that the entire solar system is moving as a single unit at a VERY rapid clip. Not something you expect from something "hanging in space" (at least, with the implication that it's attached to something).
8/31/2011 9:53:03 AM
Word salad and techno babble won't help your cause.
8/31/2011 10:06:08 AM
Before we even start, we ought to notice that, if evolution is true, there would be no way to know it.
Yes there is. Evolution is a theory and every theory has to make predictions that can be tested for so. So far, every single prediction made by evolution not only conforms to everything we observe in biology, but we have also never found anything that is beyond evolution's ability to predict or explain. For example; we have never found an insect with bat wings or a bat with insect wings.
evolution teaches that everything that exists is the product of the random collision of atoms, this logically includes the thoughts I am thinking about evolution
That's not what evolution says. That's not even what bio-chemistry says. Your thoughts are the results of a highly evolved, complicated and very ordered chain reactions of specific chemicals called neurotransmitters crossing very specific structures called synapses. Even the act of "atoms bumping around" isn't random.
Finally I'm going to say this: evolution and Big Bang are not part of the same theory, and are not mutually exclusive. You can have evolution and still believe the universe itself was created by a god or by a bunch of gods. Most people who accept evolution believe this.
8/31/2011 10:11:21 AM
Well since he is completely wrong on his first description of what evolution is then why should I take what ever else he says seriously?
8/31/2011 10:17:29 AM
When you see a post by Bryan Fischer, what's the one thing you know? It's going to be bullsh*t.
8/31/2011 10:45:34 AM
What an unbelievable moron - no clue about anything and demonstrating it so skillfully for the whole world to see!
Edit: When it comes to Perry, I'd love to see him in the White House, the US doesn't deserve any better!
8/31/2011 11:29:32 AM
"Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have an answer to this question; evolutionists do not.
When you see a turtle on a fence post, what's the one thing you know? Somebody put him there. When you see a world hanging in space, what's the one thing you know? Someone hung it there."
All this bullshit is a bit too much for me right now, but this in particular caught my eye. How, exactly, do creationists have the answer. Do you have evidence for that this god that you say created this universe exists? No, then you don't have the answer at all. Also, how do you know the earth was hung here deliberately. The earth is not a painting, a building, or even a turtle on a fence post. It is a planet. We do not know if the earth was even meant to be formed. Everything could have happened randomly, as crazy as that might seem to you, or maybe there is a creator. Either way, nobody knows for sure, so top pretending you do.
8/31/2011 11:36:32 AM
"First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter."
Poe, please poeeeee...
8/31/2011 12:17:53 PM
Overlooking the fact that evolution has nothing to do with any of the crap he's flinging, I love his analysis of the First Law of Thermodynamics: matter can not be created or destroyed. Therefor, matter had to have been created.
8/31/2011 12:25:04 PM
Creation Science and Intelligent Design theory offers a Prime Mover, evolution does not.
One of the differences between mature adults and small children is that mature adults have learned to use the words "I don't know" when confronted with questions they cannot answer.
Little children on the other hand will make up the wildest stories, demanding these are true and will defend their fairy tale explanations to the point of breaking out crying, stamping their feet, and throwing loud temper tantrums. Once they have come up with a story, they will rarely, if ever, admit that the just don't know the real answer.
This is what makes science so appealing: as with the case of the origin of the source of the universe, it just says "we don't know."
Creation Science and Intelligent Design on the other hand act like little children, going to extreme lengths and voluntarily allowing themselves to look like total fools in order to defend their silly myth.
Go out and play Bryan, and don't get wet. Supper's at six.
8/31/2011 12:40:08 PM
"The question remains: Is Gov. Perry right?"
Rick Perry's college GPA was 1.9.
No further discussion is necessary regarding that nitwit's opinion about anything related to science.
8/31/2011 12:43:41 PM
I know next to nothing about these Laws of Thermodynamics. What little I know completely defeats your purpose.
That Law relates to closed environments. The Earth is not a closed environment.
Law and Theory are not what you think they are. A Law is just a statement that can be used when describing a Theory, but not the other way around. A scientific Theory is the closest to a Fact there is, it's a complex description of a natural phenomenon.
From Wikipedia: "A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated."
Evolutionists don't resort to the Big Bang theory, as Evolution is biology and the Big Bang is cosmology. Evolution is about the adaptation of life, not the origin.
Those steel balls don't procreate.
Kitzmiller vs Dover. If Mr Behe and his creationists had all the answers, why didn't he/they produce them then?
8/31/2011 12:49:21 PM
Atheism and science are both doomed. Persuasive arguments like this must be turning thousands of people on to Christianity. Oh those clever evangelists. At the same time, these brilliantly chosen words are arming the existing Christian Army by preparing them for battle. Aghh! How can the arrogant atheist resist such an almighty assault from such a humble foe.
Christianity triumphant. Science doomed (except for the bits that let me type this on a computer).
8/31/2011 1:04:45 PM
8/31/2011 2:11:36 PM
[When you see a world hanging in space, what's the one thing you know? Someone hung it there. ]
Why did god hang the world in space? Why was god created? Who or what created god?
8/31/2011 2:47:55 PM
If this is your refutation to the theory of evolution, then you have absolutely no idea what the ToE actually is about.
8/31/2011 2:53:29 PM
Stop trying to anthropomorphosise gravity.
8/31/2011 2:54:17 PM
To those calling Poe:
Bryan Fischer is the Director of Issues Analysis at the American Family Association--an anti-gay, anti-Muslim hate group. He's been involved in right wing politics for years now, and has even played a role in the upcoming Presidential election by having candidates come on his show, Focal Point. He even partnered with Rick Perry for his prayer rally.
8/31/2011 3:12:47 PM
The main fallacy committed by the "Prime Mover" folks, including Thomas Aquinas in his mid-thirteenth century Summa Theologica, is that the assumption of the necessity of a "Prime Mover" is not equal to the necessity of the God of the Bible.
Even if we accept a personified "Prime Mover," it may very well have been Father Chronos, the Weather God of Aleppo, or some distant preincarnation of George Carlin. It could also be some universal Johnny Appleseed type figure who spends his time seeding a trans-universe with big-bang pellets, watching them grow and who couldn't care less about what happens inside them.
The ID people think they have the universal logical high ground with their "Prime Mover" but don't realize that their monopolistic assimilation of the same in their myth is far from logical.
The assumption of the necessity a "Prime Mover" on their part opens the door for all other religious group with a myth to agree but to say that said "Prime Mover" is their mythical creator and not the one from the Bible.
In other words: fail.
8/31/2011 3:25:51 PM
@checkmate: I've seen the Prime Mover argument used across the board, from the most virulent fundamentalists to super liberal Christians. And I hate it because in both cases, especially for the liberal Christians, it belies a massive cultural assumption. "Well of course this first mover of the Universe HAS to be my culture's idea of God. What other kind of possibility could there be?". I've read a blog where a liberal Christian called this kind of argument "reasonable".
8/31/2011 3:41:16 PM
It starts getting boring when bible thumping fundies are trying to act like scientists to dissprove science when they can't hold a single argument for their sky daddy in the Bable....
8/31/2011 3:44:48 PM
8/31/2011 4:27:24 PM
I find it inconceivable that this much ignorance can be concentrated in one individual.
Do you suppose his head would explode if it were explained to him that "Scientific Laws" are a part of Scientific Theories?
Laws simply describe, often mathematically, some observed part of nature. Theories attempt to explain laws and consider the implications of laws and other observations.
I always knew Bryan Fischer was a homophobe. Now I understand that's he's a total moron. I only suspected it previously.
8/31/2011 4:53:35 PM
You don't know who Bryan Fischer is? I'm sorry, but this is not a Poe. Fischer is the Director of Issues for the American Family Association.
8/31/2011 4:55:58 PM
1 2 3