Where is the damn solid evidence

Published by henderob December 3rd, 2007 in Hate Mail (and concerned criticism).

Where is the damn solid evidence for Darwinian macroevolution? All I have ever heard and read is marginal evidence and lots of supposition along with a non or atheistic worldview that specifically rules out the possibility of considering the existence of God. Science cannot imply God? Complexity cannot imply God? To you people, it cannot because evolution is true. Since evolution is true, complexity is due to evolution a priori. Tautological, completely.

Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity is brought forth that might lend credence to the argument that you all so despise–the very NOTION of the existence of God–then research is done with the goal in mind (implicit or explicit) of finding an explanation that fits within evolutionary theory. Peer review rules out the possibility of even considering any outside-the-box thinking. Toe the pseudoscientific philosophical line or be ridiculed and marginalized.

I look at you blind believers in “science” as members of a political party. If I were to go into the Democratic National Convention and tell them that Republican ideas are correct, even if my ideas hold value they will be shunned. You Darwinists are essentially sore afraid that one day someone might posit something scientific that is unexplainable by any scientific means. And you might have to entertain the notion of God! *gasp* “But that isn’t science…we can’t consider it! God doesn’t exist, only infinitely finely-tuned physical laws that don’t vary and an essentially infinitely complex universe!” Chaotic haphazard happenstance. Yep, you guys have it all figured out.

Certainly you FSMers are among the most cynical and, yes, terrified of the notion that someday you might have to draw a conclusion that will force you to consider something that is not purely scientific (i.e. to you, that means something supporting Darwinian macroevolution) in your eyes.

I know, since I don’t agree with you guys’ philosophy I have a “poor understanding” of all things science, I’m ignorant of the plethora of evidence, blah blah blah. I’ve heard it. Save the glib condescension for the next generation of potential converts to either of your–dare I say–pathetic religions.

Nothing personal to any of you guys. I suppose you all have good intentions. I do wish you well and sincerely hope you find Truth.

-A Darwinian macroevolution-denying Physician

[this message was left as a comment on another thread]

197 Responses to “Where is the damn solid evidence”

1. 61 - December 3rd, 2007 at 11:10 pm - Pirates Evolve Too Says:
   
   

   Pirates Evolve Too Dec 3rd, 2007 at 11:09 pm

   Dear Mr. (Dr.?) Physician,
   Working on my PhD in human origins, I come across quite a few people like you. Please, sir, get off your high horse. Let’s go through some of your claims. Certainly, science can imply god; certainly, complexity can imply god; but along the same line of thought, certainly, the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast or her visitation on the side of an office building can also imply god. And sir, since you are quite well read (I’m sure…using all those big words like “a priori” and “tautological”), you must know that we so-called Darwinists (aka, Scientists), don’t believe in anything…and this includes evolution. We have simply been using the scientific method (the wonderful, tried-and-true miracle that has brought us the myriad inventions, technologies, and products that make life today what it is) to produce TESTABLE hypotheses. The scientific method does not function on trying to prove a particular hypothesis; rather it functions by attempting to disprove a given hypothesis, for this is far easier to do than to prove anything. Evolution has been tested and retested using literally thousands of different hypotheses that must be supported in order for evolution (as Darwin described it) to be supported. Amazingly, and it truly is amazing, Darwin’s theory has withstood the discovery of genetics (I hope you believe that you have a genetic code, Dr. Physician), the discovery of a wide array of fossil organisms, and laboratory tests that have all but proven micro-speciation events. A good point was made in earlier posts: evolution is evolution, you can’t take the micro and deny the macro because the same processes occur in both, only macroflora and macrofauna have longer turnover rates so we humans in our tiny, little lifetimes don’t get to witness macro speciation events (although we see them in the fossil record). What else…the peer-review system? Really? Is that problematic to you? If so, then I’ll be sure to send you future copies of my transcripts before publication…I’m sure you will be able and are overly qualified to edit them for me. But remember, Behe has publications out there, so “outside the box” thinking is most definitely allowed!
   I know, sir, that nothing I say can inform you enough to believe me that we are not atheistic bastards out to rid the world of god…we are simply scientists who wish to gain a more complete understanding of this amazing world of ours. So sir, please don’t take this too personally, but you are simply ignorant on this subject…you have a Discovery Channel knowledge of what evolution is. Get yourself some peer-reviewed journals (Genetics, Journal of Human Evolution, American Journal of Physical Anthropology to name a few) and see for yourself what kind of “incoherent babble” scientists are speaking. But please, do not equate scientists to priests…our “conversions” are based on testable hypotheses and demonstrable methods…people seek out science to understand the world, we do not need to sink to the level of religion and find converts all over the world in order to justify ourselves.

   P.E.T.

2. 62 - December 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm - Maxglobs Says:
   
   

   Since you are a physicist, I will think about what you’ve said, in relation to your field of expertise. Thank you for-wait, you’re a physician. Well, if I ever need someone to diagnose my case of the “sniffles,” I’ll be sure to come to you.

3. 63 - December 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 pm - Noodly0ne Says:
   
   

   This doctor shall not operate on me.
   .
   I have made a short post.

4. 64 - December 4th, 2007 at 12:15 am - Concrete Dog Says:
   
   

   Well, as far as the Hate mails I’ve read so far, this seems slightly weak… Apparently I’m scared of the existence of a God. Hmm. You would have thought that I would therefore go to Church and pray and stuff. Or just generally believe. So, since I don’t I would guess that I’m in actual fact NOT scared of the existence of a God. Well, I suppose I’ve been wrong before, so you never know. No mention of the oars I’ve seen in earlier messages. Where have all hardcore hate mailers gone?

5. 65 - December 4th, 2007 at 12:29 am - Pixel Pete Says:
   
   

   I have two words for you “A Darwinian macroevolution-denying Physician”… if that really is your name:
   .
   NICE VOCAB!!! :D
   .
   I’m so very happy that our hate-mail is finally filled with big kid words like your’s! Keep up the good work, you’re a credit to looney fundamentalists everywhere!
   RAmen

6. 66 - December 4th, 2007 at 2:14 am - neal Says:
   
   

   At last a fundie with a thesaurus.

7. 67 - December 4th, 2007 at 2:41 am - PastaTux Says:
   
   

   Ok, back to first principles.
   Science can neither confirm or deny the existance of God, and that is not what we Pastafarians are about. Correct me if I am wrong guys, but the whole point (missed by almost all of the hate mailers) is that Creationism, unlike evolution, is not consistant with the Scientific Method and therefore has no place in the science curriculum of any school.

   Dear Darwinian macroevolution-denying Physician. As a Physician you must have a better understanding than most of the process of evolution. Look at the number of Super Bugs modern medicine has caused to evolve. I know I am referring to “Micro” evolution here but fair suck of the sav! As P.E.T. says above - “evolution is evolution, you can’t take the micro and deny the macro because the same processes occur in both” -

   We are not about telling you that you should not believe in God, nor do we insist, or bring about legal action to force you to give Origin of Species equal time in the pulpit on Sunday morning when the Reverend is Teaching Genesis.

   May His Noodlyness touch you in unexpected ways with his Noodly Appendage

8. 68 - December 4th, 2007 at 3:06 am - Jim Says:
   
   

   “I have a “poor understanding” of all things science, I’m ignorant of the plethora of evidence”

   You said it matey!

9. 69 - December 4th, 2007 at 3:09 am - Cogito Says:
   
   

   Wasn’t it stated elsewhere on here that religion cannot be considered science? The reason being that science does not allow for the supernatural. I thought that was the point CoFSM was shooting for.

10. 70 - December 4th, 2007 at 4:03 am - Chiwaw Says:
    
    

    “Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity is brought forth that might lend credence to the argument that you all so despise–the very NOTION of the existence of God–then research is done with the goal in mind (implicit or explicit) of finding an explanation that fits within evolutionary theory.”

    Isn’t what happen to ALL new theories? They are tested against by researches? Oh but I guess it’s sad for you when such theory get so easily debunked. Face it boy, irreducible complexity is not a theory, it’s just an idea pulled out of someone’s ass. And has no solid foundation whatsoever.

    “[going at a] Democratic National Convention and tell them that Republican ideas are correct”

    Yeah funny example. I dare you to write the same sentence but swapping the two party names. I bet it would be physically impossible for you to write it. Not sure why, just an intuition … ;-)

11. 71 - December 4th, 2007 at 4:07 am - Resonator Says:
    
    

    I just thought of an interesting belief/theory which I’ve heard before. Because it’s a belief and a theory, it should be taught in churches alongside the immaculate conception concept. This could and should be taken all the way to the supreme court, because it holds equal weight, and is simply being ignored. Scholars all across the world know about this theory, and I head it’s been proven somewhere (sorry, can’t find the link right now, but I’ll keep looking), but are supressing it because they are stuck in their own way of thinking. You see, the virgin Mary had oral sex with a Roman soldier, and got semen on her hand, which she then used to scratch her crotch when an untimely itch occured (hey, people had some real untimely itches back in those times). She ended up getting pregnant, but was technically still a virgin. Now, before you get the wrong impression about Mary, the hand-job was to cover some unpaid taxes, so she had a good reason for doing it. Joseph did it too when he had to, Roman soldiers being what they were and all. Naturally this isn’t something either of them were terribly proud of, so they never mentioned it to Jesus. He never surmised that the conception wasn’t actually immaculate, due to the terrible lack of critical thinking at the time, so he developed a bit of a God complex. This is the Truth as I understand it. I hope you all come to see this truth, because it’s THE TRUTH, and I will not budge an in inch on this.

12. 72 - December 4th, 2007 at 4:13 am - Resonator Says:
    
    

    Sorry, but I have to amend my above statement, because I blasphemed. I said it was “an interesting belief/theory which I’ve heard before”, and that it is “the Truth as I understand it”. What I meant to say is that it’s The Truth. Period. Sorry for the ambiguity. God knows there’s enough of that in this world.

13. 73 - December 4th, 2007 at 5:11 am - frayedjade Says:
    
    

    Looks like this guy is still stuck on flashy catch phrases of ID even though they’ve been proven so wrong as to be laughable and the movement itself is starting to abandon these phrases.

    Physician - heal thyself. (Not that I truly believe you are a Physician…but I suppose it is more possible than the notion of irreducible complexity.) No matter how much you attempt to cloak you ideology in scientific language - do not expect any rational scientist to take you seriously.

14. 74 - December 4th, 2007 at 5:17 am - Casual Says:
    
    

    I rather enjoyed this particular one because they truly believe they are brilliant. I just hope this person isn’t practicing in the NY area cause I’ll be scared of going to the doctor.

15. 75 - December 4th, 2007 at 5:59 am - El Peatieablo Says:
    
    

    @God? Pasta? what has more letters?
    I found a flaw in your (otherwise marvelous) argument; you can find the eating of poop outside of zoos, namely in and around fundie churches.
    .
    @Daaagnos
    You had a nice post. If your future posts are as intelligent as that (or totally pointless, yet still funny) you will make an excellent addition to the crew. Welcome aboard (even if somebody else already welcomed you). One tip though: do NOT glue slices of onion to the bottom of your teacher’s desk; it is NOT funny. ;)
    .
    @Bil
    *In the voice of a 4 year old kid that thinks his dad turned into Darth Vader* What are you??!?
    *runs behind a couch; as if that will help*
    .
    @Resonator
    I’m totally using that one!

16. 76 - December 4th, 2007 at 6:16 am - flyingspaghettiapostle Says:
    
    

    I’m wondering if the Doctor could answer a question that’s been bugging me lately.. just how many times can you ’shake’ your wiener after taking a leak before it becomes sinful? I asked that question at a marriage prep course during the whole masterbation is a sin thing. Didn’t get an answer then either….

17. 77 - December 4th, 2007 at 7:47 am - Blackbird Says:
    
    

    Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
    .
    I wouldn’t call you ignorant for thinking that irreducible complexity has even a bit of validity. I think “willfully ignorant” is more appropriate.

18. 78 - December 4th, 2007 at 9:22 am - Ephriam A. Says:
    
    

    I like the new pages. It makes everyone feel like a winner! I don’t want to read all the posts, so I am going to assume that this ‘Why can’t I be science too?’ email has been thoroughly destroyed and instead ask:
    .
    Where can you find a dog with no legs?
    .
    .
    .
    Right where you left him!

19. 79 - December 4th, 2007 at 9:47 am - Bottlecap Says:
    
    

    Well, he may be wrong, but at the very least he has more than a 6th grade education. These are the same things every single creationist is spewing. Even after being disproven again and again. What i don’t get is why so many people insist on ID being taught in school, but they never bring up evolution being taught in church or sunday school. If ID is taught in schools, than evolution should be taught in church.
    ~Bottlecap~

20. 80 - December 4th, 2007 at 11:35 am - CapnSkittle Says:
    
    

    D: I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. -hides-

Leave a Reply