Religious Argument No.7

If evolution is true why are there still monkeys?

I’m sure we’ve all heard this one a million times over yet it always seems to come around again. I often think this argument is just thrown in to wind up the debating atheist…or maybe the religious fundamentalist is really just that stupid!

The most straight forward and simple explanation is that we didn’t evolve from the modern day apes but we did have a common ancestor (ltr 12 in the below image) with them which is why we share so much genetic information with them.

Image Source: http://www.talkorigins.org

Genetic analyses of modern day primates, along with extensive fossil records quite clearly demonstrate that we do share a common ancestor with modern day “monkeys.” For a more in depth view of this evidence see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

Religious Argument No.9

Why do we never see any transitional fossils?

This is an especially aggravating argument as it is completely false as can be quite clearly seen in the below image:

Images copyright 2000 Smithsonian Institution

Anyone actually willing to look can find examples of transitional fossils within moments, why do I get the feeling that religious apologists just don’t want to see the evidence?

Religious Argument No.10

Evolution is just a theory – a guess with no evidence

The problem with this argument is unfortunately so simple it often gives me a headache when arguing it; a theory in biology is not the same as a theory in every day life, it has a different definition:

Scientific theory falls under this definition:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Whereas most religious apologists seem to equate it to these definitions:

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Definitions Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com

There are literally libraries and museums full of evidence for evolution which (obviously I can’t put it all on here). A lot of clear concise evidence is provided in the following link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

They're at it again...

Don’t you just hate the discovery institute? I know I do, and not because it’s a religious group (and it is a religious group). The reason I hate the discovery institute is for one simple reason… they are lying scum!

You may think that this sounds like a harsh appraisal, however, if you take the time to actually read through their literature you will see what I mean. The so called scientific papers published by this group contain so many falsities and mis-truths that I can’t help but to call them liars.

For example the articles below (I would check out the PDF and read the whole thing) are a revision of the work done by Jonathan Wells (a man who is quoted as having said that destroying Darwinism was his motive for gaining a PhD in biology) using Wells’ original “grading system.”

Website: http://www.discovery.org/a/17841

PDF: http://www.evolutionnews.org/DiscoveryInstitute_2011TextbookReview.pdf

Essentially the guy wanted to grade descriptions/images of evidence supporting evolution, which is fine; in science we are constantly evaluating and re-evaluating our work to make sure it is up to date and accurate in lines with all known information, however, unlike Wells we do not make up our own grading system to fit in with our own beliefs (if you didn’t already spot this go back and take another look at the “Icons of Evolution Explained”).

Here is where the truth of the discovery institute lies, Wells’ paper back in 2000 was rejected by the scientific community, why? Because it doesn’t follow the scientific method, so doesn’t pass peer review. If Wells’ original paper was rejected why is it still being used as a basis for Luskin’s paper? Quite simple; the discovery institute publish their own journals without need for rigorous peer review in an attempt to smear genuine science. This is why I call them lying scum.

Just what are you so bothered about?

I often in times of boredom find myself perusing creation "science" or "news" websites, usually just so I can laugh myself silly at their attempts to disprove science by using their own "science". Today I just happened to stumble upon the below article by Kenneth P. Green and Hiwa Alaghebandian titled "Science turns Authoritarian":

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/science-turns-authoritarian

Go on, take a quick read, trust me it's worth it! Essentially the authors of this idiocy seem to think that science is losing it's credibility due to demanding statements in published articles. I think the thing that stands out above all else (except maybe their fantastic Excel graph) is the fact that their are no figures anywhere to be seen; tell me guys where does your research show that science is losing credibility?

Apart from the above there are just so many holes I can punch through this page, such as the fact that the "statements" they have collated have no context whatsoever, my assumption is that most of those statements were directed at the research itself or towards those in the field of research i.e. science dictates that we follow process X, Y and Z which of course is in no way authoritarian or demanding.

In general I see the findings in this article to be, for lack of a better word, pathetic. Even if statements in articles were becoming more demanding in their wording, maybe that's because the studies were looking into what we need to achieve to change certain outcomes, in this eventuality a demanding statement is not only fair but required.

At the end of it all my question for the authors is why do you care? What is your article trying to achieve? In my opinion this quote sums up the article:

"you must change your life in this way, that way, or the other way.” I believe the authors of this article are trying to make out that scientists are attempting to manipulate everyone's way of life, trying to make out that science is a deplorable, but most of all trying to make out that science is failing and people are losing their trust in it.
I say...you are deceiving yourselves!

How it all began

This is just a bit of a bio about me and how I found atheism. I was raised in a very religious family with a devout catholic mother and a church of England father and up until about the age of 9 I was a devout christian. I used to pray at least once a day, I would often be found hidden away in my room reading bible stories. You might be asking what changed? It's quite simple really, I read the bible; not my favourite passages or stories, the whole thing, cover to cover.

If you are a christian, questioning your faith or not, I would advise doing this. if you read the bible and analyse it's content, the fallacies and contradictions begin to scream at you. Once the thought implants itself in your mind that maybe, just maybe the texts are wrong it's like a snowball starting an avalanche.

Once I reached the age of 12 and started studying science in depth at school I found something I truly loved...biology! From my very first lesson I knew I was hooked, I started reading anything and everything I could get my hands on, I took the subject through college and then at university, I found something that explained life in a way the bible and an invisible man in the sky never could. I'll often hear religious apologists saying how there is such beauty in the religious world view but I beg to differ; there is far more beauty in nature; from the transduction of electro-chemical signals via neurons to those four tiny base pairs which form all life on this planet...truly beautiful!

I think I would have been perfectly happy to sit quietly let others believe what they wanted without causing any fuss until one day posting on a forum site I saw a post from a 12 year old girl. This post declared (in extremely bad grammar) that anyone who sought medical treatment for anything would burn in hell, followed by very lengthy ramblings about men violating god's will. This medieval thinking that had been imposed on this young girl infuriated me, it was then I discovered more about creationism and fundamentalist sects of christianity; this is when I became an "angry atheist" and this is why I started this blog.