My reason for this is that the place I am most likely to be in contact with friends of friends is on the walls, posts and pictures of my friends, and I really don't think it fair to my friends to have two people (even though we are both friends of theirs) get into a virtual screaming match on their stuff.
Anyways, yesterday a friend of mine posted this meme:
Which hit a kind of uncanny valley with me, where it was both similar and different enough from the original quote to really irk me. So despite knowing it might ruffle some feathers, I responded with the original quote.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
Although most respondents seemed to appreciate my posting the quote, one came back with this:
"Conversely debating evolutionists on the topic of creation yields the same result. Both think they are right but there is no evidence to support either point of view exclusively. Even Einstein, Darwin and Hawkings stated that it is difficult to believe the complexities of the universe happened by chance without the hand of a supreme influence. Life on earth lacks it's own proof. There is no fossil evidence to support the theory of evolution exclusively. My theory is, I would rather believe in God only to discover there isnt, than to not believe in God only to discover there is. You have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em brother."
-Larry
I consider it an enormous act of will power on my part that I have not and will not be responding to this in the original discussion. I suppose the fact that I am responding here, where most likely everyone who reads my response will be in agreement with me, could be construed as proving one of his points, that "evolutionists" (his word) are as self congratulatory as creationists. But I am not looking for high fives here any more that I was looking for a fight earlier. I am looking to get a dirty feeling out of my system left from letting falsehoods go unchallenged.
So here are my problems with his statement, piece by piece.
"Conversely debating evolutionists on the topic of creation yields the same result."
This sentence is more important than it first appears because of what comes after it. Larry is going to try to paint himself as being a moderate who has respect for both sides, but I am going to guess that based on this sentence he is largely lying about that. In addition to mentioning that he gets frustrated debating those who support evolution, he uses the term "evolutionist"; its not a word used by anyone who actually supports evolution, but rather one used by creationists to describe those who oppose them.
"Both think they are right but there is no evidence to support either point of view exclusively."
If you have access to the internet your only excuse for not understanding the just how enourmous the weight of evidence in favour of the Theory of Evolution is willful ignorance.
"Even Einstein, Darwin and Hawkings stated that it is difficult to believe the complexities of the universe happened by chance without the hand of a supreme influence."
This sentence more than anything else is what had me burning up inside. While my interest in Darwin is casual, as a physics major in university I had more than just a passing interest in Einstein and Hawking; Larry is grossly misrepresenting all three of them.
First of all, Darwin was agnostic, Einstein was pantheistic, and Hawking is an atheist. If you have any familiarity with any of them you should know that none of them ever indicated they believed in the necessity of the hand of a supreme influence. (of course, in creationist circles they love quote mining famous scientists, and Einstein and Hawking both have several that are ripe to be taken out of context)
"Life on earth lacks it's own proof."
I keep wondering what he means by this.
"There is no fossil evidence to support the theory of evolution exclusively."
It really blows my mind that creationists don't realize that science has moved forward in the last 150 years. They don't get that we have found literally millions of fossils since early biologists worried about some of the holes in the fossil record. They don't get that we have sequenced the genomes of countless creatures and discovered that the DNA evidence confirms the fossil evidence. They don't get that we have literally watched evolution occurring.
"My theory is, I would rather believe in God only to discover there isnt, than to not believe in God only to discover there is. You have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em brother."
I have no desire to address the theological reasons I don't believe in god, mostly because its not really relevant to this discussion; many people have faith in god and yet are able to accept the findings of science.
But I have heard this argument before, that its better to believe in god to CYA, and I think its an absurd argument. First of all, it assumes that if god exists, that he can be tricked; sure he's the all knowing creator of the universe, but if you bluff him, he'll fall for it. Second of all, it fails to explain why that the best strategy to CYA is to pretend to believe in the Christian god, as opposed to that of any other religion.
Anyways, thanks for putting up with me while I got this out of my system. If you want a more thorough debunking of this sort of malarkey, I highly recommend the youtube series Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?
Interesting response, and I think you've made a good choice responding they way you did.
ReplyDeleteI personally take issue with both creationist rhetoric and just about anything that comes out of Richard Dawkins mouth with about the same disgust.
He is without a doubt one of the most offensive people on either side of the debate because while his is happy to verbally shred his opponents with lavish insults he immediately retreats behind cries of "Ad Hominem!" when they respond in kind.
My own views on the subject aside, that does neither side any favors except to pump his ego and sell his books. Bill Nye or Neil Degrasse Tyson I feel do a much more respectful job (and both have an extremely contagious excitement).
Yeah, it was probably a mistake for me to link to Dawkins, because he definitely lacks respect for others.
DeleteThanks for sharing that, Scott. I hold a belief in God and.Christ, and yet am perfectly happy to delve into the realm of science. In fact, nothing brings me greater joy than to discover God's creation through the work of great people such as the aforementioned Darwin, Einstein and Hawking. I believe there is room for both. My problem with this quote (and its attendant memes) is that it attempts to stop the arguments in the worst way possible. It doesn't acknowledge that, to stretch the analogy, Creationists and "Evolutionists" (you're right there: ludicrous word) are not even playing the same form of chess. So of course no one is going to win the game. Better to change to checkers. Or just have a beer. :)
ReplyDeleteI think the recent Nye vs Ham debate showed exactly what there is to be gained by respectful debate; hopefully it can be a model for future endeavors of this sort.
DeleteIt was an awesome debate. Ham is... (in my opinion) considerably less credible than Nye, but that's likely due to my opinion about the content of his position.
DeleteI'm also a Christian, and was raised with a empirical scientist (chemistry) and Anglican priest for a father. He also has a keen love for proper formal debate and I confess that has been passed to me as well. I completely agree that they aren't two sides of an argument so much as two entirely separate conversations and I treasure people who can discuss either or both with calm minds.
Thank you Sean (and friends)
You are more careful about your friends' walls than I am. I often take issue with things people say.
ReplyDeleteGood post.
Everyone has their own notions of what the social contract for social networks is; I was just explaining mine because I knew some people would think it odd that I didn't reply directly to person who got me worked up.
Delete