Friday, October 2, 2009

Kirk Cameron Scares Me

This may not actually be a Halloween post, but it is definitely frightening. It’s scarier than Dracula, and more terrifying than the wolf-man. It’s Kirk Cameron.
I won’t bother paraphrasing the recent Youtube video: I’ll just give you the link.
The most obvious problem is the idea, as Cameron put that “nothing created everything”. Over and over again proponents of intelligent design and creationism make that argument; some how it’s illogical to believe that nothing created everything. In other words, complexity must have a source, a designer to conceive of its’ intricate system.
That’s a fine argument… until you ask yourself the obvious question. If we find a watch and we have to assume that a watchmaker made it, then who made the watchmaker? It’s only logical to assume that the designer is as complex as its design. But if complexity cannot be spontaneously generated, then that must mean that the designer itself had to be designed.
Some people tap dance back forever to protoGods or aliens (why is it always aliens) but eventually they have to acknowledge that someone had to have created themselves. If they concede that a God could make itself, then why not a universe?
There answer is a resounding “Because I said so!”
They are still basically saying that nothing created everything, only they’ve incorporated a needless intermediary. The creator of everything sprang from nothing, then created everything. That’s only a problem because their entire argument lies squarely on the idea that it’s irrational to believe that.
Clearly not bothered by the contradictions in their own theory, the assault on our collective intelligence went on.
As far as Hitler and Darwin is concerned… Charles Darwin died April 19th, 1882, approximately 23 years after the publication of “Origin of the Species (About Adolph Hitler wasn’t born until April 20th 1889, 7 years after Darwin was already dead. It’s impossible that Hitler and Charles Darwin ever new one another personally. Thus, we must assume that the clip on YouTube suggests that Hitler was a follower of Charles Darwin’s works.
The supposed link between Hitler and Darwin is this: Hitler believed the Aryan race was a master race, and that the master race was destined to prevail over “inferior races”- a sort of ethnic natural selection. Because of this, that makes Darwin (in the eyes of Comfort and Cameron at least) responsible for the holocaust. What the claim insinuates is that anyone who believes in or supports Darwin’s theory is somehow a Nazi.
What if Darwin had never come along? Is it possible that Hitler would have been crazy anyways? Would someone else have proposed Darwin’s theory of natural selection? History suggests that twisted madmen existed long before Darwin, and long after Hitler.
There are plenty of other madmen, who never mentioned Darwin’s theories. In fact, I think Christianity also has a little blood on its hands… remember that thing called the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Protestant/Catholic conflict in Ireland? Hitler himself was a Catholic (
(Wasn’t there some guy who said something to the effect of “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”? Was it Mick Jagger?)
Does that mean that Christians are all ruthless murders, and that Catholics in particular played a role in the Holocaust simply because Hitler was raised a Catholic? Of course not. That idea would be ludicrous.
The idea espoused by Cameron and Comfort is irresponsible at best, and morally repugnant at worse. It should offend everyone because it attempts to brand an innocent man (Darwin) with a moral role in some of the worst crimes imaginable for the sole purpose of winning supporters over to Comfort and Cameron’s cause.
It would be roughly the equivalent of blaming Einstein for the casualties of the atomic bomb. It would actually be easier to assert that Einstein was responsible for the atomic bomb, because Einstein was at least associated directly with its creation. Darwin, however, was long dead by the time Adolph Hitler produced his warped philosophy.
As to transitory forms… well that depends on what you would consider transitory forms. In the minds of thinking, rational people there are many examples of transitional or intermediate forms. Creationists say “prove it”, but short of the second coming of Lucy, there is no way to offer definite proof. The best science can do is tell you what is most likely and most probable, what the objective evidence would suggest. No single scientific fact is iron clad.
It is the precise opposite of a religion, which posits that it knows everything about everything beyond the boundaries of what fact can prove. Science has to acknowledge what it doesn’t know, along with what it does, and has to take seriously the possibility that it could be wrong.
We now have even better evidence of evolution. With sonogram technology, images from inside the wombs of marine mammals, like dolphins, reveal embryos with distinct limbs. The limbs vanish approximately 2 weeks after developing, but the mere presence of the vestigial limbs hints that something more is going on (
If God created dolphins in their fixed forms, then what purpose do those little legs serve? Is a private joke between God and Dolphin? If so, then I think the dolphins got the short end of the stick. After all, growth requires an expenditure of energy that’s ultimately wasted, since the limbs are completely useless and have to be reabsorbed anyways.
The most confusing and useless assertions concern Darwin’s alleged misogyny and racism. Darwin probably was a misogynist racist by today’s standards, but who wasn’t?
Charles Darwin should not be characterized as the secular version of Jesus Christ. He was a product of his time, as much as any other historical figure. And he was a naturalist, not a saint. Darwin’s subjective morality is not relevant to his theories, because we aren’t accepting the idea of natural selection based on the strength of Darwin’s character.
Racism and misogyny were the standard of the 1800’s, and I would imagine that anyone traveling back in time would be mortified at the casual attitudes towards sexism and racism that existed at that time. To put it in perspective, slavery wasn’t abolished in the United States until 1865. Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859.
To put Darwin’s “misogynistic” views into context- women were not granted the right to vote in the United States until 1920.
And misogynist compared to what? Has Mr. Cameron read the Bible? Can Mr. Cameron read at all? Inquiring minds want to know…. Perhaps they’ll answer that question in their next YouTube video. That might actually get me to say “Hallelujah, it’s a miracle!” But I doubt it.


Post a Comment