Cut The Evolution Crap

Look, the scientific community at large needs to cut the crap. Here is a video from a YouTube channel that I love. Usually this channel does a great job of breaking complex concepts down into short, but still super entertaining, videos. Take a listen and you will hear a well produced and illustrated version of what the general scientific community typically says about evolution:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3GagfbA2vo&w=560&h=315]

Wasn't that great? What could be wrong with that? What on earth do I mean by cut the crap?

Here's what I mean. Click back to the :26 mark on the video. "Evolution, it's a thing, it's not a debate." This is what many in the scientific community constantly say, but they are flat wrong. They dodge the debate by pretending it doesn't exist, but the debate does indeed exist, and it has been making the scientific community look more and more foolish over the years. In the video Hank himself admits that only 40% of the population of America believes that evolution is a real thing!

Check all the statistics available and you will find that American's distrust of the scientific community at large is at an all time high. Why? For 4 reasons: First, there exists a disgusting culture and psychological mindset amongst scientists and academics in general, including Hank in this video. Those of this culture and mindset genuinely believe that they know everything and those without their particular view are uneducated or just plain fucking stupid. Click on the 1:19 mark of the above video for a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about.

This reasoning also explains why many academics and scientists are comfortable claiming that no evolution debate exists. They have all of the answers already! They would rather work on something new and interesting than "waste time" looking back at something they have already answered. Because, you know, being the geniuses they are they couldn't possibly have answered incorrectly the first time. The idea of revision or double-checking is seen simply as an unnecessary wasting of time.

Then there are also those more malignant types who flat out know they are wrong. They act out of selfishness or in defense of their own reputation or ideology rather than the simple foolishness of an inflated and impatient ego. They act as if giving real standing to the evolution debate would be unnecessary while knowing full well that granting such standing would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

They choose this strategy in order to agree with those of the other camp which makes their numbers seem larger and more unified in reasoning, or else they act as if giving such standing is something so stupid as to be laughable or even insulting! Why would it even be considered insulting? Because it might represent a questioning of their infallible, superior, mainstream scientific analysis! That, of course, is exactly what the view alternative to evolution is, and that questioning is made on purpose and with good cause. A real scientists would never be insulted by the presentation of an alternative explanation.

There are only very few scientists with the ability to resist these selfish psychosocial forces and actually acknowledge the fact that there is a legitimate debate. Even fewer can stomach the reality that once the arguments are objectively considered, evolution is loosing the debate.

The recognition of those negative psychosocial forces in academia and many of the fields of science leads many common people to distrust the analysis of those people. They could just be telling you whatever makes them look good rather than what is actually true!

There is another very similar social force at work, but it is not a psychological one. As the saying goes, "Follow the money." This cultural force exists due to the fact that many scientists and academic researchers are paid by political or corporate interests. They will produce biased research to further corporate or political or other interests, rather than pursuing the truth. This bias extends even into the camp of the opposition of the mainstream!

It is well known that the opposition of the mainstream is overrepresented by those with strong religious views. Without a doubt this religious motivation is a factor. A balanced analysis of the mainstream and alternative work, however, has shown that the opposition to the mainstream, at least in the field of evolution, is objectively justified and valid.

Besides the emotional and cultural issues remain 2 real scientific issues. The mainstream has drawn bad and unscientific conclusions with regard to climate change and theories of evolution. Such bad conclusions that even a non-expert can tell the mainstream views on those items are bullshit. When someone gives you bullshit and tells you it's true you begin to distrust them. Altogether these 4 forces contribute significantly to the distrust of the mainstream scientific community on a rational basis. Not a basis of a lack of education or a presence of education combined with a lack of intelligence.

Notice again in the video how Hank (the speaker) talks about "evolution." He says, "It's a thing," but if anyone asks, "Hey, what is evolution?" There answer will inevitably depend on context. Hank defines evolution at the 1:53 mark saying, "Evolution is just the idea that gene distribution changes over time."

This is flatly untrue. Not only does evolution play differently in the different fields of science such as social evolution and cultural evolution, even within biology there are several distinct kinds of evolution. Without further specification "evolution" usually refers to macro-evolution. However not only did Hank incorrectly define macro-evolution, there are several other versions of evolution as well! Lastly, macro-evolution is not proven through any documented scientific method, nor any logically consistent deductive method either. Micro-evolution has been documented.

This is a trick evolutionists play. They will claim "evolution has been proven." They will then show evidence for micro-evolution, and then go on to presume the validity of the clearly distinct macro-evolution. More on this later.

There is macro-evolution, micro-evolution, natural selection, and at least 4 other distinct forms of evolution, all analyzed in great detail by Kent Hovind in the video below, but not even addressed by most science teachers that I have ever had. Below is a video from Hovind where he discusses issues with and alternatives to modern "scientific" teachings on evolution as well as various other "lies in the textbooks" from the various sciences. If you don't want to watch the whole thing than just watch the first 35 minutes:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8GgrUposII&w=420&h=315]

Back to the evolution video. Of course he claims that life originated 3.8 billion years ago. He doesn't bother to mention all the evidence we have that such a number is completely unrealistic, nor does he mention the wealth of issues addressing the dating of fossils and layers of rock, etc, as mentioned in Hovind's video. Suffice it to say that evolution, if true, depends on the truth of an "Old Earth" and, while an "Old Earth" seems plausible according to most modern evidence, it is far from a debate free topic. Also he says that the similarities of bone structures implies a common descent. Is it just me or is he assuming his own conclusion? That statement, made without evidence, is so biased it makes me want to laugh.

Yet the issue with evolution is not simply that it has problems. The naysayers are not just picking a fight without suggesting a viable alternative. In fact the naysayers, including ID pioneer William Dembski, have an alternative explanation to evolution which is able to statistically explain absurdly larger amounts of the information we see around us than evolution is able to. Much like the difference between going on a blind date or dating someone you have known for a long time, having a better explanation causes evolution to look even worse due to the opportunity cost of understanding of choosing a worse explanation. Listen to William Dembski below as he explains some of what the science of Intelligent Design entials in contrast with what evolution lacks:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQwAWv41sU&w=420&h=315]

That's where I'll end this episode of liberal ass kicking. Come back and see me for some more real soon.