Rant Back

Thursday, 29 January 2009

Evolution vs Creation & Other Important Things

You want to be surprised?

I used to believe in Intelligent Design. Yes, I did. In the past tense. I was reading this book that was trying to disprove evolution (I think it might've been Harun Yahya) and for about a month I was convinced by it. But then after that moment of weakness I caught up with my common sense again.

Reading on both sides of the Evolution vs Creation argument, now I can safely say I'm convinced by Evolution. This is due to several things:

I really don't think a God (or Intelligent Designer) creating the Universe and a man and a woman who was derived from his own rib and an incestuous start to the human race is the simplest and most believable origin story of the beginning of the human species.

There has been an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution, but none for Creationism. Just vague "look around you!" shouts and a corrupted, distorted, biased and incomplete view of the Evolution theory.

What I can't digest is actual biologists (and biology students) that I know who immediately dismiss Evolution when a large part of biology owes to the theory of Evolution. It's just a theory, you say? Well, so is gravity. So is Quantum Physics. A theory is more than just vague suggestions of an answer. It is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world" (taken from here) in its scientific sense. Evolution is that. "Well-substantiated." With scientific evidence, of transitional fossils/species [1] [2] [3], and of recreated instances [1].

Using that definition, Creation isn't even at all close to a theory. Heck, if it wants to be called a theory - and it wants to be called more than that, it wants to be called the absolute truth - the only term that could vaguely work would be one under 'conspiracy.'

One of the most idiotic arguments against evolution is why don't we see people evolving back into monkeys. This is idiotic on so many levels. Clearly this person has no understanding on what the concept of evolution involves.

First of all, we don't evolve from monkeys. We have the same ancestors. So both humans and monkeys evolved from the same ape, probably millions of years ago.

Second, evolution is about getting "fitter," i.e. natural selection "selects" the best traits, and therefore evolving back into your ancestral ape would be a devolution, which does not benefit the human species.

I'm not a biologist, but I do like to read up on this stuff. I like to read Creationist "evidence" because it shows how ignorant people can be, and how dismissive of actual, scientific evidence they can be when it goes against their beliefs.

I know. The cartoon is a bit lame today. But I've kinda run out of ideas, yet I really wanted to do one.

Sometimes I just go to religious sites and read, because it makes me laugh. Of course I try and start with an open mind. But it just gets too ridiculous. Which reminds me. Watch "Religulous" by the comedian Bill Maher. It's funny. And it lets religious people make fun of themselves without even knowing it.

Like what one Anonymous guy said: "People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs"

Do I sound harsh?

I find it hypocritical when people try and use the "respect over free speech" argument for anything that criticises their religions. I think it's just bullshit. I mean, I get offended by a lot of stuff, but I don't tell people to shut up. I certainly don't issue fatwas to have people killed (Theo van Gogh and Salman Rushdie, for example). I certainly don't stand outside newspaper offices screaming "Death to Borneo Bulletin for saying Manchester City is shit because they have too much money." Yes, I made that up. People do say football is a religion.

People should have the ability and freedom to criticise anything. Absolutely anything. You want to talk about the Sultan's spending habits in detail? Sure. You want to write about how reality television is a piece of shit? Go ahead. You want to write praises about a guy who cut the moon in half and made it go in and out of his sleeve? You're welcome to.

Why is religion constantly made exceptions for? What's so special about religion that it deserves special critical protection? Maybe because it's founding principles are too weak to accept criticism. Maybe because it gives people false hope. Maybe it takes away basic human liberties. And people don't want to know that their religion is doing that. So happiness in denial is more acceptable than the rational truth?

Politics. People. Art. Ideas. Scientific theories. Literature. Your hair. These things get criticised. These things get analysed. Why shouldn't religion be in that bracket?

I admit it's a bit too early in the morning for this.

I looked up an article for you guys:

No comments:

Post a Comment