Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong for the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust.

It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins f bananas and turnips… continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We now this because a rising flood of evidence supports it.

Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it. (p. 8-9)

I agree with Dawkins that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming for someone who looks at it with an open mind. Though I’m not sure about the “no reputable scientist disputes it” part. Perhaps that should be “no reputable biologist disputes it,” because that is their discipline — a biologist who denies evolution is like a computer scientist who denies operating systems.

I’m sure there are Christian scientists (the career, not the cult) who dispute evolution, but that doesn’t mean they are not reputable physicists or geologists. It just means they’re brainwashed into believing the Bible over reality.

Dawkins also says, “no unbiased reader will close the book doubting [evolution].” But how can a reader be unbiased? Does such a specimen even exist?

A similar committee: Microsoft in 1978

We finally have discovered, beyond any shadow of a doubt, how our universe was been created. No, it’s wasn’t by some all-powerful eternally begotten long-haired hippy. Nor was it from an Invisible Pink Unicorn (bless his holy hooves). It ends up the universe was created by committee.

Doesn’t everything make so much more sense now?

The most extensive analysis yet undertaken of the structure and contents of the universe conclusively proves the universe was created not by a single entity, as has been widely suggested, but by “a fractious and disorganized committee or committees given to groupthink and petty infighting”, according to Drs. Karl Pootle and Yumble Frick, co-authors of the study. The analysis is expected to have profound implications on the theoretical underpinnings of many popular religions….

“Biodiversity is the primary stumbling block,” said Dr. Pootle. “Whoever created this cacophony of species would have had to be infinitely powerful and infinitely creative, but also infinitely schizophrenic to come up with the myriad different solutions to identical problems that the creators of the universe have. Either that, or we’re looking at a different kind of process altogether”….

“If you’re one guy designing a universe, why come up with twenty different ways of tackling the same issue?” Pootle said. “If you’re omnipotent, presumably you know perfectly well whatever the one solution is that will work best, and you go with that. The fact that the world obviously doesn’t work that way is what led us first to the committee theory. The plants and animals that inhabit the Earth show the kinds of random and incoherent thinking that can only otherwise be found in the products of design committees where there’s a lot of CYA and turf protection going on.”

The letter he wrote back is excellent, and I highly recommend you read it. You can also read some of his grandmother’s original letter. He posted both on reddit which has received almost 500 comments.

My only criticism is the footnotes. Many years ago I went through a phase where I fell in love with footnotes to the point where I would put them even in letters. It’s a turn off for most people though — it makes it feel really formal and people think you’re flaunting your erudition (which I was). That’s probably not the case for Josh, but regardless, my opinion is that footnotes are fantastic for scholarly articles, but not for letters. Endnotes would have been better if they were really necessary.

That’s only a minor quibble, though. Maybe I should have put it in a footnote…

Anyway, kudos to Josh for making his letter public!

(via)

I shall be using the name “history-deniers” for those people who deny evolution: who believe the world’s age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years, and who believe humans walked with dinosaurs. (7)

I wonder if that term hurts Dawkins’ goal more than it helps it.

If creationists called us “history-deniers” because we denied what they believe to be the clear attestation of history (i.e., that there was a global flood & the earth is only 6,000 years old), we would laugh and possibly be offended. And won’t they have the same reaction?

Do you think labeling creationists with that term makes them more likely to consider what Dawkins has to say about evolution, or less?

Update: Some have questioned whether this book is aimed at creationists. According to Dawkins, it is: “The history-deniers themselves are among those that I am trying to reach in this book.” (8)

(via)

(via)

Update: Apologies for the misleading headline. She isn’t actually screaming at Richard Dawkins; she’s just talking very loudly at him. ;)

Consider a lion. A creationist looks at one and thinks, “What agility! What speed! What skills! This must be created by God.” It’s a common sense explanation, and people believed such things for thousands of years, because they didn’t have a better explanation. The best they could come up with was “magic man done it.”

Killing Machines

Pullquote: Life is based on death. And that realization should make any honest creationist pause.

But after a while the thoughtful observer notices that these amazing creatures cause an immense amount of death and suffering. Indeed, they are very quick — the better to catch living things and snuff the life out of them. They have beautiful sharp teeth — the better to eat you with, my dear.

If lions were designed, they were designed to be killing machines. Life is based on death. And that realization should make any honest creationist pause.

I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s observation in The Diary of Adam:

[Eve] engages herself in many foolish things; among others; to study out why the animals called lions and tigers live on grass and flowers, when, as she says, the sort of teeth they wear would indicate that they were intended to eat each other. This is foolish, because to do that would be to kill each other, and that would introduce what, as I understand, is called “death”; and death, as I have been told, has not yet entered the Park. Which is a pity, on some accounts.

Once a creationist realizes life is designed to kill, they are faced with a theological problem: what kind of malevolent, sadistic designer would design this?

Hello, Superstition

Pullquote: The myth of Adam & Eve was a noble attempt to explain death and suffering, but it is ultimately a theological nightmare and at odds with all our scientific evidence.

This is where the common sense stops, and the superstition begins. If you ask most creationists why there is death in the world, they will tell you the ancient story of Adam and Eve. They believe there was no death before the forbidden fruit was munched on. You might find it a satisfying answer, as long as you don’t think about it too much and are the type to believe in stories with talking snakes.

But if you start getting specific, the mythic spell is broken and you’re left with absurdity. Before “The Fall,” how could carnivores have survived on only plants when they were biologically “designed” to eat meat? Why would they have sharp teeth designed to pierce skin if they were supposed to eat grass? And if they didn’t die or eat each other, wouldn’t the earth be overflowing with insects and animals within a few weeks? What did the venus flytrap eat if it couldn’t eat insects? How did mosquitoes suck on plants instead of blood? What about parasites? There are thousands of questions like this, all requiring a creationist to to perform amazing feats of logical gymnastics.

The myth of Adam & Eve was a noble attempt to explain death and suffering, but it is ultimately a theological nightmare and at odds with all our scientific evidence. It is, in other words, completely unconvincing to the modern rationalist.

Occam’s Razor says the simplest theory that answers all the problems is the best choice. Creationism requires jumping through so many theological and scientific hoops that it is anything but simple.

Use Science, Not Myths

The simpler answer, of course, is based on science, not common sense and ancient myths — the explanation that evolution did it without supernatural intervention. Then all the theological problems go away, and they become scientific and philosophical issues to discover or formulate.

So next time you see a mosquito sucking blood and spreading diseases, or a lion catching and devouring prey, be thankful we have a better explanation than that our ancestors ate some fruit.

Real museums have guards, of course: they’re there to protect valuable exhibits from theft and vandalism. But real museums want their guards to be discreet and not interfere with the attendees appreciation of the exhibits. At the Creation “Museum”, one of the jobs of the guards is to suppress criticism. They hover about in rather conspicuous uniforms, armed with tasers, and some use police dogs to check out the visitors. They don’t want dissent expressed in their building, and they admit it themselves….

Think about the genuine museums you might have visited. Can you imagine the curators at the American Museum of Natural History being concerned that someone might openly disagree with an exhibit? Do you think Niles Eldredge bustles about the museum, shushing anyone who questions the displays? Would they turn away a visitor wearing a Jesus shirt, or one that baldly declared evolution is false? At real museums, the attitude would range from indifference to active encouragement of discussion. The Creation “Museum” cannot tolerate that.

That really sums up the difference between a scientific freethinking approach and a dogmatic, cultic approach. Science encourages questioning and testing of theories. It encourages reading and thinking freely.

Dogma, on the other hand, wants to silence criticism. It wants its members to only hear the party line. They don’t want people to think for themselves.

I think I know which one the creation “museum” is more like.

So if the teacher had made the comment that Greek mythical characters were “religious, superstitious nonsense” and had no basis in reality there would have been no problem.

But James Corbett said it about creationism in the classroom, and in March, he lost a 16-month legal battle, with the court concluding he violated the first amendment:

“Corbett states an unequivocal belief that Creationism is ’superstitious nonsense,’” U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a 37-page ruling released from his Santa Ana courtroom. “The court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context.”

The establishment clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion” and has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.

Creationism is religious, superstitious nonsense. It is not based on history or science, but on an ancient book. If children want to believe that, they can — but I think it’s a teacher’s role to show them that those beliefs do not have a basis in reality.

But was Mr. Corbett going over the line when he called it “religious, superstitious nonsense” — or was he simply stating a fact that should be protected under his 1st Amendment rights?