Holy Hallucinations 18

Uploaded by TheLivingDinosaur on 08.02.2011

This is a response to the PPSimmons video, 'Evolution's FORBIDDEN WORDS (Random, Chance,
Unpredictable, Accident).' Well, Carl, I’m back again and if you think
I’m picking on you, then you’d be right. You’re one of the most dishonest creationists
on Youtube as evidenced by the fact that you keep repeating the same lies in video after
video instead of materially addressing the refutations that have been provided, and as
long as you keep doing that I’m going to keep calling you on your bull.
This time you’ve decided to build you house of cards using childishly feeble little word
games, so before I start blowing it down lets see how you began your video so we can get
a taste of what’s in store for us. “The hypocrisy of evolution is amazing.”
Is it really, Carl? You do realize that evolution is a rational conceptual framework formulated
by scientists to explain the diversity of life on earth and the mountains of physical
evidence uncovered in fields as diverse as paleontology, molecular biology, biogeography,
biochemisty, genetics and taxonomy, don’t you?
It certainly isn’t an animate being, let alone a sentient one, and so can hardly be
accused of hypocrisy any more than it can of not flushing the toilet or of calling you
an ignorant prick. You may not realize this, Carl, but selecting
the right words and the order in which to use them is critical in formulating a lucid
and compelling argument. As it is, you’ve just demonstrated that you grasp of the English
language is about as tenuous as your grasp of modern science and of reality.
“It sees that whenever we make a video about evolution in which we use the words random,
accidental, chance or unpredictable, we get a barrage of comments and postings from evolutionists
telling us how ignorant we are and how those words don’t even come close to describing
the purported process of evolution. Well, Mr. Evolutionist you simply can’t have it
both ways. We can easily expose your hypocrisy.” You may think you can easily expose this imagined
hypocrisy, Carl, but thinking and doing are two very different things and we’ll soon
find out that the only thing you end up exposing in this video is your willingness attack anything
that calls your beliefs into question with any kind of slander you can lay your hands
on. It’s telling that you only mention that
this “barrage of comments and postings” accuses you of ignorance. While I whole-heartedly
agree with statement, it’s interesting that you neglected to mention that a significant
number of those postings also tell you what a lying little pisspot you are.
Perhaps you omitted these accusations of dishonesty from your video lest some of your more innocent
viewers begin to wonder whether they should continue to blindly accept every word that
you’re spouting or whether to at least start questioning your veracity. If they ever did,
then perhaps they might also wonder why you never address these accusations of base sophistry,
especially since you’re such an upstanding Christian. Now, that would make life interesting
for you, wouldn’t it Carl? Of course, anyone with even a sixth grader’s
understanding of evolutionary theory and without a mind shackled by bronze-age mythologies
would be able to tell you that that these words don’t even come close to describing
the process of evolution because they only describe certain specific aspects of the process
and not the entire process itself. This is an important distinction that you’re
either unwilling or unable to grasp and I’ll elaborate on it later as I address your miserably
facile arguments. Now, in the remainder of your video you delicately
dissect, with all the skill of a epileptic surgeon with a chainsaw, a layman’s web-interview
with evolutionary biologist Doug Futuyma. Now, I do have to give you credit for actually
posting a link to the article in question and for stating that Futuyma accepts the validity
of evolutionary theory. However, you also use these two facts as evidence
to claim that you aren’t quote mining. And in all fairness, Carl, you may not have thought
you were, but as I’ll show you in a minute, you’re wrong and that perhaps you just aren’t
quite bright enough to realize it. In Holy Hallucinations 17 I mentioned that I wasn’t
sure whether you were genuinely stupid or merely deluded, but based on this latest evidence
I think I’m starting lean in one direction. Again, I’ll demonstrate this later, but
first let’s see what your incisive mind has to say on the subject of natural selection.
“Question number one. What is natural selection and how is central to the theory of evolution.
Dr. Futuyma’s answer: ‘Natural selection is the process by which species adapt to the
environment. Natural selection leads to evolutionary change when individuals with certain characteristics
have a greater survival or reproductive rate than other individuals in a population and
pass on these inheritable genetic characteristics to their offspring.’ Well this statement
is scientifically and biblically accurate. And he is right, without knowing it, that
this built in genetic transference capability certainly does explain design, as well as
the common sense conclusion that a design has an intelligent designer, by definition.”
It may seem like a common sense conclusion to you Carl, but the history of science has
repeatedly shown us that common sense has little to do with reality.
Matter, which common sense tells us is solid and substantial is really made almost entirely
of empty space. Gravity, which common sense tells us is why apples fall to the ground
is really a manifestation of the warping of space and time by matter. Light which common
sense tells us is a wave and electrons which common sense tells us are particles are both
actually waves and particles. And epilepsy which common sense once told us was caused
by demons holding rave parties in our heads is actually the result of electric storms
raging across the synapses of the human brain. Your common sense Carl is has its place in
the everyday monotony of human left. It’s useful to tell you not to jump over that cliff,
to not poke that lion with a stick or to not eat the yellow snow. But it has no place in
science, which builds models of the world based on the evidence we observe and obtain
and not on what we expect based on our personal biases and proclivities.
Your seemingly sincere belief that “common sense” has any place in the enterprise of
gathering knowledge of the intricate and sometimes baffling phenomena of nature betrays a breathtaking
shallowness of thought that simply beggars belief. I sincerely hope that one day you’ll
grow up and be allowed to play in the deep end.
Now, to change the subject, I’d like to thank you for verifying that Dr. Futuyma’s
brief description of natural selection is scientifically accurate. The next time I need
dishonest and slimy ignoramus to confirm the fucking obvious, I’ll know where to come.
As for it being biblically accurate, I’d be very interested on hearing in which book
to find the verses containing a treatise on population genetics.
It’s funny how you slipped in that lie like Kent Hovind slipping a deduction into a tax
return, hoping that no one would notice. Unfortunately, I’m watching you Carl, and you’re going
to have to do a lot better than that. The fact is that your book says absolutely nothing
about evolutionary theory any more than it says anything about any other aspect of modern
science because it was written by ignorant savages who thought that burning animal carcasses
to please their barbaric god was a good idea and not simply a waste of perfectly good mutton.
Your assertion that this definition of natural selection is biblically accurate, therefore,
has all the credence of a prostitute declaring that the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics
is Kama Sutrically valid. Finally, this isn’t the first time I’ve
seen you jump onto the word “design” like a horny dog onto a vicar’s leg. Evolutionary
biologists use the word “design” informally with lay audiences to describe the adaptation
of organisms to their environments or the apparent design observed in evolved replicating
biological systems. They certainly don’t use the word as you
do to imply that these systems were consciously designed for a specific purpose by a sentient
being. You certainly must know that this is the case by now Carl, and yet you still insist
of pouncing on that word every time it’s used by a scientist and frottering it mercilessly
until it needs dry-cleaning. How very honest and sincere of you.
Now, in fact, Futuyma explicitly says all of this in the final paragraph of the article
where he even uses the phrase “appearance of design” twice, but of course being the
dishonest dipshit that you are, you completely neglect to mention this. Did you spot the
quote mine yet, Carl? OK, time for the next clip, so let’s take
a look at how you handle Dr. Futuyma’s answer to the question of whether natural selection
the only mechanism of evolution. Here you are, reading his explanation of the possible
fate of phenotypically neutral mutations. But once you have genetic variation there
are basically two major possibilities. First, there is simply no difference between the
different genotypes or different genes in their impact on survival or reproduction,
and in that case you can have you can have random changes of one versus the other type
in a population or a species until eventually one replaces the other. That is an evolutionary
change. It happens entirely by chance - by random fluctuations.”
Let me point out that this is an incredibly simplified account of the process of genetic
drift aimed at educating the general public. Trying to refute evolutionary theory by attacking
this particular passage is like trying to impugn the sophistication of the English language
based on the material that is presented to you on Sesame Street. Nevertheless, you don’t
seem to be one to avoid a challenge, Carl, so you plough on in regardless.
Even with that aside, the only thing you succeeded in doing here is showing how handy you are
with a pickaxe. In the very next paragraph Futuyma goes on to explain exactly why another
evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, is and I quote “consistent, predictable
and dependable”. If you weren’t quote mining Carl, it would
have been fair to mention this in your video rather than selectively read from a passage
that only on the surface supports you contention that evolution is a random process. Do you
really think that no one would follow your link to the article, let alone read it? Or
didn’t you care because you knew that those who did would never fall for your pitifully
transparent subterfuge anyway, and because and your sole goal here is to deceive those
who haven’t learned to think for themselves yet?
What the article, and the established and astoundingly successful scientific theory
that it’s discussing, in fact says is that although evolution contains random and probabilistic
factors such as mutation, cross-over, physical isolation and genetic drift the overall process
is far from random. Deterministic processes such as natural and sexual selection are,
in fact, more than sufficient to mould order from this apparent chaos.
To explain this to you more simply to someone with your evident aversion to reason, let
me make an analogy. The game of poker contains elements of random chance such as the cards
dealt and the players seating positions. Nevertheless the same group top players consistently win
the top tournaments while the majority of the others might as well just play roulette.
Does that mean, Carl, that you’d posit that your supreme pixie has the ear of the house
and owes Phil Ivey a favor or two? Or would you surmise that Phil’s experience, knowledge
of the odds, abilities to calculate and read faces and his nads of steel when it comes
to bluffing are sufficient to override the inherent randomness of the game?
Of course I’m sure the “common sense” you alluded to earlier would lead you to the
latter conclusion. Now isn’t that ironic? Now, in the final part of the video you address
Futuyma’s agreement with Steven J. Gould’s conjecture that should the evolutionary “tape”
be rewound and replayed, the results would be very different. Let’s take a look at
what kind of response you managed to muster. “Interesting. Listen to these words again:
‘that just happened at the right time, in the right species, in the right environment,
but it need not happen that way - so there’s this unpredictably. In other words - the very
definition of accidentally.” I’m making the assumption here Carl, that
your only exposure to the terms “Chaos Theory” and “The Butterfly Effect” have been from
watching Jurassic Park and not from a mathematics class. Even systems consisting of just a few
interacting parts and processes can behave extremely unpredictably following even tiny
variations in their starting conditions and that’s without introducing any random elements.
If we can’t predict the fate of a double pendulum, then how on earth could we predict
the fate of a global ecosystem? Such a “replay” of course isn’t possible
in reality and is merely a thought experiment to point out the random aspects of the evolutionary
process. Gould and Futuyma are highlighting that under different circumstances, the absolute
direction of evolution would almost certainly have been different for the reasons I just
outlined, but that evolution would still occur as inevitably and inexorably as it has in
the past and as it’s still occurring today. Our inability to predict the future direction
of evolutionary processes doesn’t mean that be cannot be certain that they are occurring
now and will continue to occur into the future. You, of course, ignore all this and in your
reprehensible yet inimitable style seize only on these random aspects and dishonestly misrepresent
our current evolutionary status as “accidental”. The fact is that past events on planet earth
did conspire to produce a species of sentient ape capable of producing both works of astonishing
beauty and works of complete craptitude, and under different circumstances we might not
be fortunate to be here pondering on our existence. On the brighter side, we also wouldn’t have
to watch your crappy, dishonest videos. “Random, chance, accidentally, just happening
at the right time, place, environment and just the right species. Unpredictable. It
seems these words are only forbidden to those of us who would dispute the teaching of evolution.
They certainly are not forbidden to be used by evolutionists, however. It seems that their
hypocrisy knows no boundaries.” These words aren’t forbidden to creationist’s,
Carl, as long as they have the common decency to apply them correctly to evolutionary theory
instead of using them to beat and twist it into some kind of grotesque straw-man that
they can use to validate their puerile, childish beliefs.
If you ever develop a conscience and a sense of decency, and feel that you can make an
argument against evolution without lying through your teeth then please feel free to use them
at your leisure. In the meantime I’ll keep pointing out your lies as quickly as you keep
spewing them. Finally, you might want to take a little time
to ponder on this. Why is it that you feel comfortable with accusing rationalists of
hypocrisy when it’s you who claims the moral high ground and the moral absolutes of your
invisible friend and yet you feel no compunction in lying like a senator caught in a brothel
when it comes to attacking those who don’t believe your fables? Does the phrase “double
standard” mean anything to you? Also, why is it that the only way you can
find to defend these stories is to act like repulsively dishonest charlatan? If you’re
so sure of the veracity of your position, why can you never find honest ways in which
to defend it? I really hope you’ll take the time to consider these points, Carl. I
know thinking isn’t easy, but if you try it you might actually find it quite edifying.
So with all that said, Carl, I think I call it a day. If you’re feeling a little sore,
you might want to try sitting a bucket of ice for a while until the swelling subsides
a little. I’m not sure when you’re planning on releasing your next anti-science video
but I’ll be sure to keep my eye out for it and respond. As a result I suggest that
you might want to wait just a little while before posting it – at least until you’re
not feeling quite so tender.