Well, I'm pissed. Recently, I've found myself more often pissed. Now I'm pissed at the "evolutionists". Specifically Richard Dawkins. At least insofar as he is responsible for the content of his site. Here's the "debate":
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=65326
Frankly, I think the creationists are raising some good points. Where's the macroevolution? I see a lot of apes, and I see a lot of humans, but I see very few ape-human hybrids. We're all familiar with the picture of ape evolving into man: divided into stages, the ape gets gradually taller, more man like, until we have, finally, the human. This process is supposed to take millions of years. Moreover, evolution is supposed to be constantly occurring. So why is it then, that we can only observe the first and the last stages of this process? Why don't we see ape-human hybrids wandering around? If evolution is always happening, shouldn't apes always be evolving into humans (or at least into something)? Not to mention every other species on the planet.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a creationist. In fact, I think I have a response to this macroevolution problem, which I'm not going to share with you.
What's pissing me off is how the "evolutionists" are treating what seems to me to be a (serious?) flaw in the theory. The debate given above is absolute bullshit. The scientist richarddawkins.com has employed to argue their point of view is far more qualified, articulate, educated, etc. than the person they have chosen to support the creationist point of view. Sure, most creationists are merely fanatics. But so are most evolutionists. There are well established and respected academics who argue very convincingly against the theory of evolution. If you're going to have a debate, let both sides be represented fairly. Evolution has flaws, and to just dismiss as crazy those who would point out these flaws will not help to improve the theory. Science works by surpassing itself. If the theory of evolution we have today is NOT laughable to evolutionary biologists in 500 years, then it's a failure.
So Richard Dawkins, fuck you for trying to ruin science!
4 comments:
I guess I see it as future organisms are the other half of any hybrid we can think up, which is why we don't see current organisms as hybrids - we see them as 'finished products'. Hmmm... that was a confusing sentence. What I mean is, humans are an ape - future being hybrid. We don't know what the future being is or what it looks like, so we can't recognize its characteristics in us.
We would have seen ape-human hybrids had we been around to observe 500,000 years ago, but we have to settle for being content with their skeletons. Ape-human hybrids would never have recognized themselves as such because the concept of 'human' would have been alien.
And I don't write anymore because I'm on a restaurant reviewing kick! Tides will shift, I'm sure...
I look forward to reading more on the topic in the future. Keep up the good work! This blog is going to be great resource. Love reading it
Post a Comment