I don’t care if Dr Carson is a creationist or not. Indeed, my opinion of creationism goes up every time I hear of a rocket scientist or brain surgeon who supports it.
For that matter, George Washington was a creationist, as were all educated and civilized men before Darwin erected his rather tenuous hypothesis that species can change characteristics to a point where they form a new species, intersterile with their parent species via an blind process called by the oxymoron ‘natural selection’ (which is to say, unplanned planning; undesigned design).
This theory is not widespread because it satisfies scientific rigor (it does not) but because it pretends to offer a satisfactory explanation for the origin of man that is naturalistic and non-theistic (it is not).
The fact that no scientific observation or experiment has ever confirmed this origin story for man makes it, as far as I am concerned, a dogma of faith taken on authority, but, unlike a religious dogma of faith, by hypothesis there is no authority on which to rely whose word we trust when he tells us it is by this means new species originate.
I don’t care if Dr. Carson thinks the pyramids of Egypt stored the grain of Joseph. I am deeply ashamed for our nation that our press put this matter before public attention, and that the public, including me, is wasting our time with it.
40 comments
To believe the granaries thing, you have to ignore the most basic facts about the pyramids. I am ashamed that a man who is apparently too lazy to look at the most basic evidence for or against an idea is a viable candidate for the presidency of my country. And I am just a bit disgusted that anyone who calls himself a science fiction writer would be so clueless about evolution. As a certain biochemist and science fiction writer said, "Evolution is now the central fact of biology. The science simply would not make sense without it."
"I am deeply ashamed for our nation that our press put this matter before public attention, and that the public, including me, is wasting our time with it."
It is important because the POTUS makes decisions involving science research, education and funding. That a candidate for the office exhibits such shocking ignorance about such matters, especially when evidence is so easily available on the internet, does not inspire confidence in his (or her) ability to make decisions in any area. It tells me the candidate is not willing to examine evidence and makes decisions based on a book written thousands of years ago by a culture that had nothing in common with today's society.
Would you be comfortable with a POTUS who declared that the earth was flat or that the sun and planets revolved around it? For that matter, would you want someone who believed all evolutionary biology research was wrong rooting around in your brain? I certainly wouldn't.
"I don’t care if Dr. Carson thinks the pyramids of Egypt stored the grain of Joseph."
I agree. That's not important right now. It's much more important to know how many hot dogs he can eat without throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister, or suffering erectile dysfunction. Those are the qualities that make a good president. That, and making the world safe for the Ann Coulters of the world to get air time despite a total lack of credibility. And oh yes, one more thing: a President has to know the difference between Curly and Curly Joe. WHOOOP-WHOOOP-WHOOOP-WHOOOP-WHOOOP!
I care because this idiot nutjob science-denying fundie Christian is running for fucking president!
And I agree that it's not important if he thinks the pyramids were built to store grain. What's important is that he still believes it after being told how incredibly wrong he is and he has many supporters defending his wrongness.
While you could say that he has little need to know such things to be president, the fact that he did no research, ignores facts, or just plain doesn't give a crap means he's not exactly someone who you should trust to make good judgements on the running of anything beyond his toaster.
Sure, he's a brain surgeon, but what has that got to do with presidency? Or anything outside of that specific field, for that matter?
Also, since evolution has a lot more smart people backing it, shouldn't you have more respect for it, mister baised idiot?
"I am deeply ashamed for our nation that our press put this matter before public attention, and that the public, including me, is wasting our time with it."
Kinda like how you wasted time with the ridiculous birther nonsense and claims that Obama is a secret Muslim?
But not like that, because what a person running for office *actually* believes is important, especially if that person openly professes belief in something utterly ridiculous that demonstrates how little he cares about truth and facts.
@ BattyCakes
"Sure, he's a brain surgeon, but what has that got to do with presidency?"
Seriously! It ain't rocket science! :-)
Darwin wasn't concerned with origins. He just explained evolution, which is an entirely different thing. If you have those two things confused, no wonder you don't understand it at all.
And natural selection? That's so easy it is self-evident once it's pointed out to you. Any critter with many offspring that survive and multiply is going to be more numerous than any critter with fewer survivors. More of the successful one's DNA will exist in nature. If a change, an adaptation, is harmful, that line won't last long. If it gives an advantage in any characteristic, that family will eventually outnumber the others.
I don’t care if Dr. Carson thinks the pyramids of Egypt stored the grain of Joseph. I am deeply ashamed for our nation that our press put this matter before public attention, and that the public, including me, is wasting our time with it.
I do Johnny-boy. It's been shown what the pyramids are for and how they were built. If my president refuses to understand the information that archaeology has discovered and explained in the simplest of terms, I sure as hell don't want that man running the country.
“Indeed, my opinion of creationism goes up every time I hear of a rocket scientist or brain surgeon who supports it.”
Because rocket scientists and brain surgeons are experts on the field of biology.
"I don’t care if Dr. Carson thinks the pyramids of Egypt stored the grain of Joseph. I am deeply ashamed for our nation that our press put this matter before public attention"
Well, what's stopping you from voting for a purely Atheist candidate who would never say such fucking stupid things in the first place?
Why would someone who is rational make such bullshit claims with no basis in fact ...?!
image
Why would the Church of England bury & memorialise Charles Darwin in their central place of worship, Westminster Abbey, if his discoveries were mere fantasy, with no basis in empirical scientific fact .
You should start asking yourself these questions: To their only logical conclusion , John C...:
image
Oh, and the press put that matter before public attention - even if you subjectively consider it a 'waste of time' - because they can . That's rather the fucking point ; after all: why do you never see the tabloid press saying anything about ex -long time Christian Jonathan Edwards after he recanted of his faith...?
Q.E. and D.
Even when digital audio recorders and digital camcorders the size of half a pack of chewing gum existed, politicians here in the UK would say 'There is no such thing as "This is strictly off the record"'. Just ask Todd Akin.
unplanned planning; undesigned design
You're deliberately phrasing it to make it sound as confusing as possible. Yes, the theory of evolution produces results that look 'designed' without the presence of an actual designer. Yes, it's counter-intuitive. That doesn't make it untrue. Do you have any actual proof beyond "This sounds stupid"?
I think the fact that a Presidential candidate believes in patent nonsense, that can be disproved by, you know, going to visit the pyramids, is relevant to the interests of the American public.
People who have actually studied biology for a living near universally accept the theory of evolution as true. Also, we have the fossils, we win.
"This theory is not widespread because it satisfies scientific rigor (it does not)"
How so ? Just because you, contrary to the scientific community, declared it does not ? Sure.
translation:
"Ignore the stupid comments from our theocracy promoting candidates, pretend they're intelligent, remember, like we did with W."
George Washington didn't use computers nor the Internet. You’d better stop using them too!
Darwin's THEORY is one of the strongest, most supported, most attacked and subsequently most tested theories around.
Natural selection is not an oxymoron, silly. That which can survive long enough to procreate and have offspring that also procreate is selected by nature. God (if he exists) might well have kick-started evolution, as it’s a very efficient way to sustain life, without any active involvement from him.
The theory is widespread because it's well supported and there are no valid competing hypotheses.
The fact that evolution has been observed a million times in laboratories, and has literally mountains of evidence in its favor, makes it scientific and valid.
If you want an authority telling you things; move to North Korea.
Laughing at dunces is hardly a waste of time, it's time well spent.
"I don’t care if Dr. Carson thinks the pyramids of Egypt stored the grain of Joseph."
I care because if he becomes POTUS he'll have to deal with many complex issues relating to the Middle East, an area he clearly knows nothing about.
"I don’t care if Dr. Carson thinks the pyramids of Egypt stored the grain of Joseph."
I care because (1) thinking that displays an incredible level of ignorance. (2) not realizing how ignorant you are displays an incredible level of stupidity and (3) not learning when people point out how wrong you are is an incredible level of arrogance.
This is not the sort of person we need anywhere near the nuclear codes or deciding on budgetary issues.
How do I know Joseph didn't build the pyramids to store grain?
There's the obvious point that Egyptian records say they were for pharaohs' tombs. (Related point: we have found FUCKING DEAD PHARAOHS AND LOTS OF THEIR SHIT inside some of them.)
Also, the pyramids would be terribly inefficient as granaries because they're mostly solid stone.
Also, we know how people in that part of the world used to build granaries, and pyramids ain't it.
Also, Joseph couldn't have built them because there are over a hundred of them, built over more than a thousand years, well outside the lifetime of any one person, even if you accept the Bible's claim that people used to live to be multiple centuries old.
I have no particular expertise in Egyptology, anthropology, or history. If I had to cite a source for these claims, I'd have to go with "Mrs. Barton's sixth-grade World History class". Am I an elitist because I don't want my country run by someone whose beliefs shouldn't have survived a middle-school education??
The fact that no scientific observation or experiment has ever confirmed this origin story for man makes it, as far as I am concerned, a dogma of faith taken on authority
Except that's not a fact. How can humans and chimps have many instances of the same retroviral DNA (ERVs) in the exact same place in their genes unless they inherited it from a common ancestor?
George Washington was a creationist, as were all educated and civilized men before Darwin
So anyone outside the Abrahamic tradition was an ignorant barbarian?
Incidentally, St Augustine thought the creation account was an allegory when he wrote 'The Literal Meaning of Genesis' in the fifth century.
As dumb as Carson’s initial statement was, the real issue is that he didn’t correct himself when his error was pointed out to him. Instead he repeated it and insisted that as “his opinion” it was as valid as the theories actually supported by the evidence. Because for fundies and right-wingers it is apparently more important to never having to admit that one was being wrong about something, instead of adjusting one's opinions when presented with new facts.
And that is not a trait I want to see in something in charge of the still most powerful nation on Earth.
"This theory is not widespread because it satisfies scientific rigor (it does not) but because it pretends to offer a satisfactory explanation for the origin of man that is naturalistic and non-theistic (it is not)."
Widespread is irrelevant, origin myths also are. This is denial, because even if you don't like it, yes, it's the best explanation and is supported by plenty of evidence, that's why it's the scientific consensus. I'll let you start with something like Wikipedia's Evidence of common descent article and follow its sources. I also recommend reading a more standard school textbook, Campbell's Biology. And no, science doesn't work with dogma, that's religion. Then how is natural selection an oxymoron? Also out of ignorance, I presume.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.