The Evolution versus Design Test

You are, in all likelihood, a Creationist. You don't even pretend to sound scientific or to utilize rational arguments when you argue against evolution or for intelligent design. In fact, you seem to be totally ignorant of scientific methodology. Your attempted critiques of evolution are most likely wholly inadequate because of this ignorance. For instance, you most likely do not understand that the word "theory", when used in a scientific context, means something totally different than the word "theory" when it is used in common practice. You also probably do not understand that scientific theories must be falsifiable and make specific predictions in order to truly be considered scientific--otherwise they would not be testable.

In essence, you believe in Intelligent Design and support the movement. However, you cannot truly be called a member of the Intelligent Design camp, most notably because your attempted critiques make no pretense at being scientific or based on evidence, and also because they are just so dumb and irrelevant that even the Intelligent Design movement would want to distance itself from you. Granted, Intelligent Design supporters are dumb and are probably ignorant of scientific methodology as well, but you surpass even them, which is quite a feat.

Creationists tend to believe evolution isn't falsifiable. However, they will also point out perceived flaws that seem to falsify the theory in the same breath. They also think evolution is an entirely random process, as they are totally unable to fathom the idea of natural selection. They also tend to emphasize the fact that evolution has never been "observed". This criticism is totally irrelevant, for many scientific theories regarded as true cannot ever be observed. A theory predicts certain facts which would fit the framework. These facts can be observed. If they fit the framework, the theory is supported; but if they do not fit, then the theory is falsified. For instance, if one were to theorize that a cat knocked over a trashcan, it is unnecessary to actually see the cat do so. One can look for left-over evidence of the cat, such as cat hair, paw prints, and so on. The evidence provides proof of the theory, despite the fact that it was not directly observed. That is how evolution is proven, despite the fact that no one has ever seen it occur. It takes millions of years for evolution to occur, so asking for direct observation is absurd.

Oh, and in case you didn't know, evolution can pretty much be considered an established scientific fact. Also, theism is fully compatible with evolution. The theory of evolution predicts that we should make certain biological observations ranging from genetic and structural similarities between descendents and ancestors, the presence of vestigial organs and junk DNA, fossil records that reflect an evolutionary timeline, and so much more. All of the facts in the biological sciences have fit this framework, and they provide abundant evidence in its favor without one fact that seems to falsify the theory.

Sometimes a creatonist will argue that there are no transitional fossils, and that this falsifies evolution. However, this is just a silly claim. For one, one would expect transitional fossils to be difficult to find because when animals transition from one species to another they tend to have a very limited range. Only once they have become fully adapted to a new environment and become a new species will they spread their population. This is why most fossil finds don't show transitional fossils--because scientists would have to look in a very specific place because the transitional species would have a localized range. Another reason is that, obviously, most animals do not get fossilized. The fossil record is extremely imperfect. Of course, there ARE actual fossils that show transitional species. The transitional fossils for whales, for instance, are found in abundance. The transitional fossils that show a change from reptile to mammal are also quite abundant. Anyone who claims there are no transitional fossils is simply ignorant of this evidence.

Creationists also argue that the second law of thermodynamics, which says closed systems go from order to disorder, contradicts evolution. This argument is just silly. First of all, if this were true, then Intelligent Design would be false as well--because that entails order coming from disorder. Putting a puzzle together or growing a plant would also be impossible, given this false interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics. The reason why it is false is because the Earth is not a closed system. If it were not continually receiving new energy from the sun, the argument would be valid, but because it is "open" and constantly receives new energy, it does not tend towards disorder.

A common creationist quote: "I simply cannot comprehend how a fish could one day evolve a lung! It is absurd to believe such a thing!" First of all, the quote is a straw man of evolution, for a fish could not evolve a lung in "one day". The process takes millions of years and occurs through the changes in genetic diversity of a given population. Not only that, but it is only an argument from incredulity. Simply because a creationist cannot conceive of how this is possible does not mean it is not possible.

Oh, and to answer the question: It evolved from a fucking swim bladder, bitch.

Please, for the love of God (or should I say science?), read a biology textbook.

***

The other possible categories:

Intelligent Design / Social Darwinism / Evolution

If you'd like some further edumahcation in regards to scientific and religious issues, be sure to read my blog, which can be found here: Saint Gasoline