15. A Million Monkeys and Youtube Contributions

Every so often, tumbling through the "series of tubes" that (everyone knows) comprises the internet, I come across a site or a video that very accurately portrays the typical arguments posed by theists with regards to atheism. This one, for example:



Then comes the age-old question, the pivotal choice between responding to the daisy chain of logical fallacies, or simply bemoaning our educational system for allowing these tragedies to occur. Since I don't possess the tolerance for trolls and link-spams (not to mention creepy-dim lighting, or a spastic webcam), I'll likely never join the Youtube bandwagon. But I'm fairly certain that's why Al Gore invented blogs.

The Anti-Atheist Argument, Deconstructed:

[0:00 -- 0:50] Mentions the "creation" of the universe in conjunction with the "creation" of Earth/planets/humans, ignoring correlation or the passage of time. In cosmological terms, Earth is only a recent addition to the universe -- and the development of Homo Sapiens might as well have happened this morning. Darwin's "fairy tale" bears no connection whatsoever to the origin of planets.

[0:58] This quote of evolutionary theory having “done nothing to help the progress of science” is not only a ludicrous thing to say – its source could not be located. I did scrounge up a quote stating that no single theory can be credited with the progression of science, rather that science is furthered by the accumulation of theories that continue to hold water. Possibly misconstrued quote-mining. Either way, an argument via slogan isn't a valid one.

[1:06] Darwin “wasn’t a scientist?” Curious as to the definition here. In terms of practice, he was the scientific method personified. If you’re speaking in terms of education, Darwin began his college studies in the field of medicine – and only left to study theology because he couldn’t stomach the era’s surgical procedures. It should also bears mentioning: he was indeed a minister, once. He didn't die as one. Wonder why that is....? Hmm. *Cheeky Eye Roll*

[1:22] “I’m gonna create my own theory.” The theory was a product of observation, recording, and study across many years – and a shared pursuit of several scientists at the time. (Wallace, for one – who published similar papers immediately following Darwin's.) It was not a willful attempt at rebellion, and struggling to paint it as such does nothing to further your argument. Whether or not his theory coincided with the notion of god was a very personal battle for him, one that lasted for a great many years. In the end, he realized that beliefs should be molded to the facts, not the other way around.

[1:38] “Threw out some queries.” Oh dear. A scientist being humble. For shame. 150 years of hardcore testing and evidence-investigation, and the ideas, along with their explanatory and predictive capabilities, still hold true. Very few “ideas and queries” can be said to have remained as congruent.

[1:53] Making a religion of Darwin’s dangerous idea. This one rears its ugly head a lot with regards to evolution. A puzzling method of attack, and one that may well be unique to America. Religious crowds do not ever accuse backers of gravitational theory, germ theory, or the theory of plate-tectonics (i.e. – nearly… everyone) as being followers of a “religion”. Odd, that.

[1:59] “Hope?” … Again, I find myself puzzled. Following the evidence. Has nothing to do with personal desire. This may underpin an important distinction between brain types as well. The ability to separate your own impressions and beliefs from your scientific observations is crucial to the integrity of knowledge.

[2:12] “There should be evidence.” YES! Exactly, there definitely should! And there definitely is. Libraries-worth of documented, verified evidence.

[2:40] “No transitional forms?” You’re…. you’re kidding on this one, right? Because EVERY bone and fossil found has fit in perfectly with evolutionary theory. Every one. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html Some have even been predicted by evolutionary theory PRIOR to being discovered. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html So, please tell me you’re kidding, ‘cause… ‘Cause I’ve no hope for my son’s education if you’re not.

[3:14] “Leave MY theory alone!” Hey, now. You started it. Besides, you’re kinda forcing us to be cruel on this one. You’re willfully choosing to remain in the dark with regards to the facts, and you're using scientific vernacular as though it holds the same meaning in lay-speak. It doesn’t. In scientific terms, the “fact” label is not an easy thing to come by. The transition from “idea” to “hypothesis” to “theory” can take decades, even centuries to achieve. Larger explanatory models have always been – and may always be – dubbed as “theories”. Theories are comprised of facts, proven-viable, tested, peer-reviewed, and re-tested. They have to stand up in the face of everything we know concerning the workings of the world. The evidence gathered in the wake of proposed theories MUST support the theory, else it does not SURVIVE as a theory. Evolution as an ongoing process is a fact. It is observable. It is verifiable. It is in yer face. Evolution as origin will likely always be called a theory, because science has a higher standard than the world at large. God, however, cannot maintain his efficacy beyond the “hypothesis” stage. I cannot leave your theory alone. Because you do not have one.

[3:44] “Lucy fraud” – The knee-joint claim is an empty accusation. Zero controversy exists here. “Nebraska man” was more likely to have been a mistake than a fraud, classification was given in 1922 and was corrected in 1925 – not by god, but by scientists who continued researching the claim even after making it. Highlighting again the superior methods of science vs. religion, where evidence is valued over belief. None of the examples here cast any doubt whatsoever on evolution -- dealing solely with human ancestry, which branch fits where, and whatnot. You will see shown in the image below a current listing for these known branches, each of which are filled to the frothing brim with fossils and full skeletons (many numbering well into the hundreds) proving their efficacy.

[3:48] Far from being an example of “terrible science” – is a shining example of how the scientific method reveals the truth.

[4:02] “Make the choice to let go of evidence.” Ah, the heart of theism, summed in a sentence. Brought a tear to my eye.

[5:05] “Are you willing to let go of it, if it isn’t true?” Absolutely. In a second. And every atheist, skeptic, and scientist alike will say the same. Our only interest is in understanding the world for what it is, not what we wish it to be. Give us the evidence, the theories will duke it out on a national, public stage, winner-take-all while the loser is stricken from the text books. Intelligent Design, which I’m guessing you may well support, tried its hand at this. But again, ID isn’t a theory. It’s a failed hypothesis.

[5:17] Nobel. Pronounced no-bell. Not… noble.

[5:55] Design from complexity, and the notion of randomness. Ugh. By this point, I just want to pat the poor video on its exploiting-failures-of-perception-as-justification-for-ludicrous-notions head. We evolved to see patterns where none exist, and to ascribe human characteristics, or purpose-driven descriptions to inanimate things. It happens to the best of us. Read the following, and we’ll talk again, mkay?

[6:27] The "cell is absolutely useless if the information varies?" WHAT? Oh my. *Vigorously Refers Speaker to Afore-Mentioned Books*

[6:48] Pointing to the “impossibility” (think she means to say “improbability”) of chance. Three issues here – well, actually FAR more than two, but I’m trying to be concise. One) natural selection is the furthest thing from accidental occurrences. Two) backwards calculations of statistical probabilities nearly always yield borderline-impossible results – even when there AREN’T a vast number of glaringly obvious inaccuracies to fuel them, as with your Kinko’s/NYC comparison. Three) if the whole of the debate hinges on likelihoods, Occam's Razor clearly favors science here. The odds that all the rules of nature have unknowingly been suspended in order to allow for a supernatural deity of ANY sort, let alone your particular version of a praise-worthy deity, are... improbable.

[7:30 – 8:58] This one has become a slogan in its own right. Yay for irreducible complexity! Yay for debunked, bogus notions! But no, seriously, yay for the science that blows this shit out of the water. The flagellum described here? Not irreducibly complex. Nothing is.

[8:58 – 10:32] Ayup, I know. You don’t like us, and you don’t like our silly reliance on evidence and reason. We get that.

I do have to say, it's partly nice to see the religious masses at least making an attempt at scientific discussions and evidence-based arguments. I've a hope that the "science" and "evidence" parts will eventually show themselves, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.

But here's the overall issue with this video -- apart from the many flaws listed above, of course -- it seems to argue that atheism is somehow contingent on the truth of evolution as a theory. If that were even remotely the case, my blog would state little enough to nothing, because I'd be leaving the issue to geneticists, paleontologists, and... people like Kirk Cameron. (Oh dear. We'd best not venture there, even on a sarcastic basis.) My atheism came from reason, and from an understanding of religious history. My husband's arose from the realization that 99% of the world's religions have been banished as myths, though once were followed as vigorously as today's theists follow Christianity, Islam, or Judaic beliefs. Many atheists have come to the conclusion philosophically, still others, for emotional and moral reasons. In terms of deconstructing atheism, every argument offered can only be... woefully inadequate.

Proving evolution does indeed discredit the accounts in the bible as accurate portrayals of origin. And much of the world, the one that exists beyond American borders, has already recognized and accepted those inaccuracies. But disproving evolution doesn't point to the existence, or even the rational justification, of a god.

14. Silly social movements -- labels are for kids.

Recently, I watched a video of the presentations given at the 2007 AAI Convention, and was pleasantly surprised (though I probably shouldn’t have been) by the ever-contrary nature of Sam Harris’ speech. In it, he very honestly asked us – as atheists – to question the wisdom of outwardly calling ourselves “atheists”. For the large-and-growing movement of reason and science to advance in the rapid way that it should, he proposed, we needed to circumvent the prepared arguments, the prejudices, and the blatantly-oppositional propaganda that seems to crop up whenever the world at large hears that particular term.

Wha---huh?!? Not call ourselves “atheists”? After all this time, all of these efforts in trying to draw our neighbors-in-arms (or at least, in-philosophy) from the shadows? I was confounded. I was chagrined.

And, from a societal standpoint, I agreed with him.

More than once, I’ve listed here the ways in which that one little word can hamper a conversation – or, indeed – a relationship. To say nothing of an entire social movement. He was justified in pointing out the sticky truth, which is: to an adamant believer, the term is more than a stumbling block… it’s code for “DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER! Executing terminal shutdown of all input capabilities!” (… A little much? Yeah, you’re probably right.) Besides, we don’t deign to give ourselves labels with regards to our belief in fairies or unicorns, Thor or Apollo – and doing so when it comes to today’s brand of mysticism seems to lend it an odd sort of credence. Einstein never referred to himself as an atheist, though for all intents and purposes he was one, because (he once stated) he didn’t quite share their “fervor” when it came to open conversation or religious debunking. And, it should be said, Mr. Harris himself has managed to bend many an ear to our cause without ever having called himself an "atheist" either.

But then again…

I have only my own experiences to draw from. As you know by now, I am little more than a housewife in a back-water section of the world, surrounded by people whose religious tolerances (or lack thereof) would just as soon see me tarred as glance my way; and that may well have tarnished my perspective of the issue – giving me a belief that wouldn’t survive a transition to the national stage. But when it came to a mirror-facing throw-down with myself as to whether or not I stood with Mr. Harris… I was forced to realize that I didn’t.

For many years, I shied away from calling myself an atheist. And for those many years, I didn’t have the conversations I should have been having. My religious friends and family approached my non-religious nature the same way a Lakers fan might address someone who’s just not that into sports: “no biggie, pick another topic of conversation, she’s not really… NOT religious – she just ain’t settled in to the right church yet.” Even putting forth my meager arguments as I did, absent the “OMG, NOOOO” label (as I’m pretty certain some would call it), my views seemed to lack the weight of… I’ll call it sincerity, for I can’t seem to dredge up a better word at the moment. Absent atheism, the person-to-person world didn’t seem to think I was all that invested. But by sporting the title, I somehow opened the floodgates and thereby the lines of communication. Those same friends and family began defending their views in earnest. Books were exchanged, debates were held, and (very occasionally) I’d earn the satisfaction of knowing someone’s perspective of atheism had been altered for the better.

Strangely, and happily, I like atheism. I like calling myself an atheist. I like knowing that the world, and maybe even our religious nation, are on the verge of accepting the novel notion that maybe we aren’t what we’ve seemed, from the other side of historical-biases. And, even after an honest and careful consideration of this argument, I can stand by my self-affirmation – and my call to you, and to those who share your views, to declare yourselves as I have – with something approaching… confidence.

The advancement of reason, of evidence, of fact-based intelligence, needs our support. And, if I may venture to say as much Mr. Einstein, I think the world needs our fervor, too.