My brother's a smart guy. During one of my numerous anti-Cruise Scientology rants recently, he pointed out that Scientology is just another stupid religion, no more or less stupid than any other, more mainstream religion. At the time, I disagreed with him, citing thousands of years of historical and communal tradition backing up old-school religions, whereas Scientology only has the lunatic jabberings of a mediocre sci-fi author to fall back on.
But I was wrong and Jonathan was right. Or, at least, it seems that way when you read this obnoxious, idiotic attack on evolution from inane conservative blog Red State.org.
Semi-anonymous dim bulb Leon H. tries to argue that a belief in evolution translates into a disdain for humanity, leading to a completely anarchic amorality. Yeah, I know....it already makes no sense, but bear with me.
If atheistic evolution is true, and there is no God, then a number of logical conclusions are also immediately assumed to be true:
Before we even get going, let's talk about why Leon gets even this first sentence wrong. First off, he assumes everyone who believes in evolution is an atheist, believes the system runs completely independently of any sort of supernatural or mysteriously misunderstood force of nature.
This is complete bullshit. I mean, Darwin believed in both evolution and God, and so do numerous scientists. Millions of them, really. Think Einstein, both a religious, God-fearing guy and a famous scientist.
Okay, so obviously, that's dumb, as Leon would know if he had ever actually bothered to read Origin of the Species rather than just excerpting quotes out of it misleadingly in an attempt to stifle free thought.
The second problem with phrasing the question of evolution this way...it doesn't take into account whether or not evolution is actually true. Leon even starts his article stating that he doesn't want to discuss whether or not evolution is accurate - he just wants to talk about why believing in it hurts society at large.
Isn't this just typical? This is how our President thinks - pay no attention to what's actually happening, just think about how you wish things were and talk about that. So, even if the world functions and grows through an evolutionary mechanism, if that simple fact doesn't vibe exactly with the religious beliefs you've already decided on, just ignore it, and maybe it will go away.
Okay, on to Leon's actual argument. If you can call it that.
If atheistic evolution is true, and there is no God, then a number of logical conclusions are also immediately assumed to be true:
It is first immediately recognized that physical matter is all that exists. As such, humans are neither unique or special in the cosmos, as they are merely matter arranged in a specific way. The implications of this are staggering, from both a philosophical and political point of view.
I like that Leon uses the term "logical conclusions," as if he's going to actually employ some kind of logic. But, of course, he doesn't. The term "logic" actually means something - it describes a specific method of attacking a problem using pre-determined laws. Leon just makes a stupid, inaccurate assumption and then calls it a "logical conclusion."
His assumption is that belief in evolution equals a belief in an entirely known and understood universe, as if people who believe that humans descended from apes also neccessarily believed that there was no God, no spirituality, no mysterious forces of nature acting in ways humans don't understand, even no extraterrestrial life. The evolutionist, for Leon, is a person with the hubris to declare that he or she knows everything there is to know.
What insane clap-trap. Beliving in evolution doesn't mean you don't believe in anything more powerful than ourselves. It just means that, considering all the available arguments about the descent of man, the only one that seems reasonable is this Darwinian concept of natural selection teamed with random mutation.
So, okay, Leon's whole argument is based on a logical fallacy, a thoroughly ridiculous non-argument that pretends to speak for evolutionists. What Leon really does is what Karl Rove always does - he creates a strawman, a fake argument that almost no one agrees with, and then argues against it as if it represented his opposition.
This means that everything else that follows is meaningless, because it's all based around an incorrect, bogus assumption. But let's goof on it anyway.
1. Humans are no more special or worthy of protection than any other species of animal, since we are are merely matter arranged in a different structure, and our existence here is just a matter of random chance.
2. Humans are no more special or worthy of protection than any species of plant, for the same reasons listed above.
3. Humans are no more special or worthy of protection than inanimate objects such as rocks, since the only principle difference between us are the proportionate amounts of Carbon, Hydrogen, and various other elements.
Where in the evolutionary theory does it say that human beings are fundamentally the same as tungsten? Nowhere! How you feel about humankind and its place in the universe is a personal decision that has to do with many different considerations.
Sure, if you feel that God created human beings carefully, molding them after himself, you might feel that we are meant to rule the Earth, that all other creatures are our servants by right. If you believe that the universe came to be following a period of adaptation and change spanning millions of years, you would be more inclined to see us as a piece in a larger puzzle, as a cog in a vast machine with the ability to take advantage of the wonders around us, but also a responsibility to them.
But it is not a zero-sum game. You can believe in a little bit of both. That human beings are obviously operating on a higher level of consciousness than any other creature or object, and that therefore their wants, needs and comfort requires a special level of consideration.
I mean, my very existance disproves Leon's argument! I'm an atheist who staunchly believes in evolution, but I don't think a human being is of equal importance to a mineral or a plant. If there was a fern dying in front of me, and also a baby, even though I don't like babies and would be concerned about getting baby goo on my clothes, I'd help the fucking human, you know?
Further, if atheistic evolution is true, we are doing a great disservice to ourselves by keeping the weakest members of our society alive and affording them legal protection.
Now, Leon has really gone off the deep end. He's trying to tie evolutionists to Fascists by bringing up eugenics policies.
I'm going to rephrase Leon's argument to show you how fucking stupid it is. Here we go...This is really what his column says.
"I don't believe in evolution, whether or not it is true. Because it's bad. I know it is bad, becuase if you believe in evolution, you have to believe in the following things:
1. There is no God
2. Humans and human life is insignificant
3. Everything in the world is exactly the same because it is all composed of matter
4. We have the right to kill anyone we deem inferior
Because I think those things are wrong, I reject evolution.
Love,
Leon H."
Okay, I added the salutation at the end, but the other stuff is genuinely just different phrasing. The argumentation is identical. This guy is one of the stupidest Internet scribes I have ever read, and I used to read John Gibson's column daily!
And because I can't resist, here's John Gibson's new column in its entirety. It's sensitively entitled "What's the Obsession With Africa?" It's short, so you should read it the entire way through, and learn what type of people we're actually dealing with here:
I am going to say something now that amounts to complete and total heresy in this world. It makes me completely and totally apostate, a low-life, pond scum. But I'm going to say it anyway.
What's the obsession with Africa?
I mean, here's the day after the Brits big day of terror. Fifty dead, 700 wounded. The ancient and regal city reduced to walking home because of guys with backpack bombs set on timers and at least one guy who blew himself up along with his victims.
So here's Friday — what amounts to 9/12, the day after 9/11 — and what is Tony Blair doing? Talking about Africa — debt relief, AIDS relief, starvation relief.
I know Africa needs help. But the day after their big terror day, the Brits were back to talking about Africa, as if nobody set off any bombs in London the day before.
I know, I know. The Brits were trying to show the terrorists that they won't be dissuaded from their important work in Africa.
But even the reporters were fixated on Africa. Can you imagine this in America?
"Hi, I'm George Bush. We got bombed yesterday and I want to talk about aid to the third world."
Mr. President, put a sock in it. What about the bombing? Caught the terrorists yet? Are you yanking out their fingernails yet?
Come on. What this is really about is that things are so good in Britain, life is just so perfect, the Brits have turned their attention to improving life somewhere else.
Bono was at Gleneagles, Scotland, site of the G-8, where he's being treated like a rock star who is also a prime minister who was swept into office on a landslide vote. Actually nobody voted him anything except cool.
But look at the guy. He's selling aid to Africa in a tuxedo jacket and a rocker's silk shirt and those damn stupid glasses he wears everywhere. What does he look like without those things anyway?
This is a perfectly good working class Irish rocker who now goes around demanding money from rich countries to give to the poor.
Am I the only one who thinks all this looks very, very nuts?
That's My Word.
He is unthinkably vile....That's MY motherfucking word.
No comments:
Post a Comment