Some people wonder why evolution isn’t more accepted than it is. Despite the monumental amount of evidence in multiple fields of scientific inquiry, those pesky creationists, bringing up the same tired arguments, sometimes seem like B-movie zombies. No matter how many times they get smacked down, they keep coming back to torment scientifically-minded, rational people with their brainless moaning and logic resistance.
It’s not that they have anything new. Oh, sure. Occasionally a new bit of scientific evidence will be discovered… a fossil, some DNA functionality, a new species in a remote location… and they’ll latch onto it and somehow manage to twist it into something they claim supports intelligent design or a young Earth, but it doesn’t. Aside from that, it’s the same old stuff. Why, then, won’t their arguments die?
Because assertions are easy.
For example…
Transylvania has the largest population of vampire bats in the world, which is why vampire legends originated there.
See how easy that was? Does it sound reasonable? Sure it does, as long as you don’t know anything about vampire bats (or vampire legends). It took me about 20 seconds to come up with that claim and type the sentence. How long would it take you, if you don’t actually know any data about vampire bats, to refute my statement?
The internet helps, but you have to have motivation. Wikipedia is an obvious and expedient place to visit. Here’s what you find out from the Wikipedia article…
Vampire bats are bats whose food source is blood, a dietary trait called hematophagy. There are three bat species that feed solely on blood: the Common vampire bat (Desmodus rotundus), the Hairy-legged Vampire Bat (Diphylla ecaudata), and the White-winged Vampire Bat (Diaemus youngi). All three species are native to the Americas, ranging from Mexico to Brazil, Chile, and Argentina.
There you go. All the known species of vampire bats are native to the Americas. What if you don’t know where Transylvania is? Another visit to Wikipedia lets you know it’s in Romania… which isn’t part of either of the Americas. So it would seem that my statement has been soundly refuted and put to rest.
Or has it?
Oh no, I say.
There used to be another species of vampire bat that was native to Romania, but it went extinct over 100 years ago. Vampire legends started well before the bats went extinct.
Now what? The Wikipedia article says nothing of an extinct species of vampire bat. There’s nothing in the Romania information that states anything about vampire bats being native to the country. If you want to do more research into debunking my claim, you’re going to have to spend a bunch of time searching the internet… to refute something that you’re 99% sure is completely bogus, anyway.
But how much time did I spend on my claim? Not much… perhaps under a minute… and if I really believe what I’m saying, I’m going to start making that statement all over the place to anyone who will give me 30 seconds of his time or to any place that will allow me to post my nonsense. By the time I’ve reached 1,000 people, you’d still be trying to confirm whether there actually was a species of vampire bat in Romania 100 years ago.
Then suddenly you’ll find that someone else is saying that vampire bats lived in Romania 100 years ago, but they’re saying that bones were found that prove it… and that the bats were as large as ravens… and a group of scientists is researching whether or not they preyed on human babies.
What… is… going… on?!?
Assertions are easy.
It’s what creationists do. They shovel on the assertions (Gish Gallop, anyone?) and then, when their assertions are left unchallenged, they declare victory… and spread the news. It takes very little time to make assertions, but gathering evidence and presenting a logical refutation takes quite a bit of time (in comparison). Even if you already know the evidence and the refutation, it generally takes more time and effort to deliver it.
It’s not just creationists, though. Politicians do it. So do their opponents… especially protestors. Scientology does it (Fair Game doctrine). Climate change deniers do it. Moon hoaxers do it. Obama birthers do it. Sometimes, to add to their pseudo credibility, they’ll actually add facts to back up their claims… but only the facts that support their arguments. They’ll leave out contradictory facts or simply leave their facts out of context. They’ll misquote an expert (or quote mine). They’ll twist words.
When moon hoaxers do it, it’s amusing (unless you’re Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin). Nobody really takes them seriously. When creationists do it, it’s more serious because they want to teach our children to believe their nonsense… and they frequently want it in our schools. When climate change deniers do it, it can be dangerous in the long term… and just irresponsible.
Am I doing it right now? Sort of… but not really. These are my opinions based on my observations. I’m sure plenty of examples can be found where creationists have provided valid scientific data to irrefutably support their arguments.
*snicker* …or not.
a truth that’s told with bad intent,
beats all the lies you can invent – Blake
The concept of ‘belief in…’ allows for the belief claim to be completely idiosyncratic, completely false, completely lacking in evidence.
Thus, faith which amounts to trusting some authority, be it person or text, gets on quite well even if one’s beliefs are irrational, immoral, manipulative lies — just like all creeds of xianity.
Thus a mantra contra xians:
You’re welcome to your own beliefs, but not your own truths.
You’re welcome to your own faith, but not your own knowledge.
You may not impose your fictions on anyone.
the anti_supernaturalist
I’m diggin’ the mantra. 🙂
Great post, but it really points out the futility of arguing with a fundamentalist. I say it’s high time we stopped bending over backwards to try to dispute what they say. Stop wasting our time trying to debunk their extraordinary claims. It’s time to finally put the onus on them – god exists? prove it. miracles happen? explain them? the fossil record is a lie? prove it?
Ah, forget it. I can already see waiting around for a rational answer and sifting through the dogmatic statements would be MORE infuriating than repeating myself over and over and over and over again. I guess I’ll stick to rational “debate”. At least I am bound to learn something new while debunking them.
The “learn something new” aspect is one of the things that really helps for me. Sometimes I’ll hear something that seems suspect, and in the case of researching it, I’ll find out all kinds of great information that I otherwise would never have found.
I agree about putting the onus on them, but the problem is that what they consider “proof” is generally not what any reasonable scientist would consider proof. ie… “Just look at the beautiful trees! How can you think God doesn’t exist when such beauty is all around us!”
Ummm…