Jackson’s Powerful Argument Against Evolution


Given his penchant for crazy, stupid and bigoted views, I’m sure it will come as no shock to my readers to find out that E.W. Jackson, the “bishop” who managed to win the Republican nomination for lt. government of Virginia, is also against evolution. And he offers powerful arguments like this:

Scientist have made much of the fact that chimpanzees have been trained to use sign language. They take this as proof that primates are our ancestors because they, like us, have “language capacity.” It is amazing the length to which people will go to prove what is so palpably false. The ability to make sounds which serve to communicate the simplest to most complex ideas is an astounding thing, almost supernatural in itself. Equally remarkable is the ability to reduce those sounds to written symbols universally understood and capable of conveying the ideas that those sounds represent. To suggest that all this is an accident of evolution belies the intellectual power language represents. Those are gifts given to mankind by God who created us. He gave those gifts to no other creature. There is an unfathomable gulf between humans and all other creatures because creation was designed that way. No amount of time or theorizing will ever bridge that gulf. Only mankind was made to represent the divinity and genius of God himself.

And monkeys also eat bananas, the atheist’s worst nightmare. Checkmate, science!

Comments

  1. says

    Scientist have made much of the fact that chimpanzees have been trained to use sign language. They take this as proof that primates are our ancestors because they, like us, have “language capacity.”

    *facepalm*

    This is the first I’ve ever heard this claim. I always thought scientists make a big deal about it because it shows chimps are smart, not that they are our ancestors.

    Also, my ancestors are primates. At least he ones for the last few million years.

  2. Michael Heath says

    While this is obviously an idiotic, ignorant argument that gets the facts and science wrong, it’s also a very popular one within conservative Christianity. If this guy were white he’d be generally considered courageous within that population for speaking, “the Truth” (sic). I’m not sure what the reaction will be for him given he’s not.

  3. Michael Heath says

    nigelTheBold writes:

    Also, my ancestors are primates. At least he ones for the last few million years.

    Well, uh yeah they are, because humans are primates.

  4. John Pieret says

    The ability to make sounds which serve to communicate the simplest to most complex ideas is an astounding thing, almost supernatural in itself.

    In some universe, it might be considered a miracle that morons can make noises at all.

  5. lockout says

    When viewing the skeletal development from Chimpanzees, to Apes, to humans, it is quite clear to me that man did evolve from Chimpanzees. Exploring further the intrinsic talents of these little guys, we can observe their ability to quickly adopt the use of tools, and even tactical military posturing. Personally it makes me happy to know I am evolved from a Chimpanzee, and not something like a three-toed sloth.

  6. Michael Heath says

    lockout writes:

    When viewing the skeletal development from Chimpanzees, to Apes, to humans, it is quite clear to me that man did evolve from Chimpanzees. Exploring further the intrinsic talents of these little guys, we can observe their ability to quickly adopt the use of tools, and even tactical military posturing. Personally it makes me happy to know I am evolved from a Chimpanzee, and not something like a three-toed sloth.

    Newsflash, there is no evidence you evolved from a chimpanzee. Instead the evidence reveals humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.

    I also suggest not conjuring up your own explanation as you do here, but instead look to the evidence and explanations the relevant scientists have discovered and how they explain that evidence.

  7. lockout says

    Having five senses and being introduced to the sciences, one does not need to defer to experts. One simply needs to consider the evidence. Therefore, if we can agree that our common ancestor is a chimpanzee from maybe a hundred thousand years ago, then we can agree.

  8. raven says

    It’s just routine creationist fundie xian god babble.

    There is an unfathomable gulf between humans and all other creatures because creation was designed that way. No amount of time or theorizing will ever bridge that gulf.

    It’s also completely wrong in every sentence.

    There isn’t an unfathomable gulf between humans and other primates. We have a well characterized fossil sequence which goes back 4.5 million years or so. We see transitional human fossils all the way to Ardipithecus. Anyone with an internet connection can look at the photos in a few minutes.

    As you go back in time, the hominids look less and less like us and more and more like a bipedal chimpanzee.

    Jackson: No amount of time or theorizing will ever bridge that gulf.

    It’s already been done. It took a little theorizing and more work on the ground. Religion is lazy. Rather than find things out, they just make up lies and repeat them long after they’ve been proven false.

  9. slc1 says

    Re lockout

    Actually, the last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived some 6 million years ago.

  10. dingojack says

    So the argument is:
    A) Chimpanzees (and Gorillas too actually) can use sign language and point at symbols to communicate.
    B) But this isn’t proof that humans evolved from chimps*
    C) Only humans can use language, because god made it so, in order that humans could tell god how clever he is**

    Dingo
    ——-
    * Of course this is complete nonsense. Humans didn’t evolve from chimps any more than chimps evolved from humans. They both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither human nor chimp.
    ** Except see point A. Ooops, bang goes that theory.
    Plus if god is omniscient why would he need to be reminded how clever he is? Why wouldn’t he already know?.Why can’t he just read people’s minds an bypass all that tediously complicated talking stuff?
    And are mutes sub-human (and therefore unworthy of god’s ‘love’) because they can’t tell god stuff he already knows?

  11. raven says

    Public Policy Polling May 24–26, 2013
    E.W. Jackson R
    29%

    Northam D
    35%

    Undecided
    36%

    I looked for polling data to see if this extremist has a chance of actually being elected in Virginia.

    One poll shows him behind the Democrat but with a huge 36% undecided, it is hard to say right now.

  12. dingojack says

    Hey as a creature who (i believe) evolved from a three-toed sloth I resent the implication.
    Stay where you are for a couple of millenia, I’ll rush right over and scratch your eyes out.
    :) Dingo

  13. lockout says

    You don’t know that slc1. We only know what we see, hear, feel, taste, and touch. Your conclusions are based upon instrumentation and modeling. This makes them speculation. Different dog-breeds were developed in the blink of an earthly eye. The intervention of a divine Natural hand can do wonders to any creature.

  14. lockout says

    Our thought process can be fooled. Our senses provide raw data. The importance of a critical thought process is herein illustrated.

  15. says

    To suggest that all this is an accident of evolution belies the intellectual power language represents. Those are gifts given to mankind by God who created us. He gave those gifts to no other creature. There is an unfathomable gulf between humans and all other creatures because creation was designed that way. No amount of time or theorizing will ever bridge that gulf. Only mankind was made to represent the divinity and genius of God himself.

    Yet more evidence of the centrality of speciesism to creationism.

  16. shouldbeworking says

    Personally it makes me happy to know I am evolved from a Chimpanzee, and not something like a three-toed sloth.

    On a rainy Sunday morning I most closely resemble a 5-toed sloth. With a cup of coffee.

  17. raven says

    Equally remarkable is the ability to reduce those sounds to written symbols universally understood and capable of conveying the ideas that those sounds represent. To suggest that all this is an accident of evolution belies the intellectual power language represents.

    A Sky Fairy didn’t teach us to write. We invented it ourselves.

    Several times independently.

    And writing evolved. One clade started out with simple symbols going to cuniform, then alphabets which underwent adaptive radiation and acquired such things as capital letters, spaces between words, vowels, and punctuation.

    Other writing systems include hieroglyphics, Mayan glyphs, and the extant ideograms of Chinese, and hybrids with syllabuses such as Japanese.

    capable of conveying the ideas that those sounds represent. Written Chinese isn’t phonetic. I suppose Jackson, who isn’t much for facts, considers written Chinese a fake writing system because it isn’t like English.

  18. uzza says

    E.W. here continues a long tradition of religious intolerance going back to Aristotle; “Those who are born deaf all become senseless and incapable of reason.” because, see, they can’t speak. (Note how adroitly he skips from sign language to the ability to make sounds?) Because of people like him, until recently people like me were locked up in asylums and treated as animals, .
    Hey Christstains, if you want to show how you’re better than everybody else, why don’t you try actually being better? Also, fuck you, E.W.

  19. dingojack says

    In order to operate your senses*, you need to grow a brain, moran!
    :) Dingo
    ——–
    * OBTW there are more than five senses. I think that this story was a furphy conjured up by Plato on an off day
    Speaking of critical thinking….

  20. dingojack says

    What’s that Skip? Sonny has fallen down the cliff? And we should give shit why exactly, Skip?
    :) Dingo

  21. dingojack says

    uzza – “Children of a lesser god”?
    Dingo
    ——–
    Once when travelling to HK (for reasons to tedious to go into) we had a movie. The Business Class had ‘The Color of Money’, us denizens in Tourist Class had ‘Children of the Lesser God’. I think someone was having a laugh.

  22. matty1 says

    Only mankind was made to represent the divinity and genius of God himself.

    If Jackson represents the genius of God then God is clearly an idiot.

  23. Sastra says

    Raven #9 wrote:

    Religion is lazy. Rather than find things out, they just make up lies and repeat them long after they’ve been proven false.

    Religion is lazy on many levels. In addition to blithely disregarding what has actually been learned about how things evolved, they categorically refuse to provide any details whatsoever for what they want to insert in its place.

    So the God who “created” us “gave” us “gifts,” huh? How did that work? What was the process, the method, the history? What the hell does any of that even mean? Psychokensis? Platonic essences? Magic? Or is it all just code for “it happened somehow and I DON’T CARE how and neither should anyone else: we’re too little to understand?”

    It’s that last one, I think — the proud and inviolable ignorance of a toddler. Dennett called it playing tennis without a net. Scientists need to go through hoops of demonstration for every single detail and the other side just closes their eyes and gestures into the air.

  24. zenlike says

    lockout babbling:

    Our senses provide raw data.

    No, they really don’t. IS there anything on which you are even remotely right?

    Is your first language something other than English?

    It’s godbotting gobbledygook, mixed with sign language (handwaving).

  25. says

    Facepalming at lockout. Of course science uses models, hypotheses and theories. Without those, raw data is meaningless and useless. Data alone doesn’t tell us anything unless we can make predictions with it. Without explanations, we can’t understand why the data is the way it is or how it might have gotten to be that way. Without models, we can’t look at something and determine how it will change or what consequences our actions will have on it.

    Without evolution, there is no rhyme or reason to the diversity of life. Of course, that’s kind of what Creationism is trying to push towards: To them, chaos is the natural order, their god just randomly threw some organisms together out of spare parts, and thus they consider any claim that there is a overarching reason life is the way it is is delusional.

  26. birgerjohansson says

    I would be happy to be descended from a three-toed sloth . My ancestors thought the three-toed sloth were posh. We barely had a differentiated cell between us when I grew up.

  27. birgerjohansson says

    Um, at some point we have to assume we are not, in fact, living in the Matrix. Or that the world including our memories was not created five minutes ago. Since our senses have been fine-tuned by evolution we have a good chance of making correct assumptions about the world outside our brains (as long as we do not need input from X-rays, UV or IR).

  28. pough says

    The ability to make sounds which serve to communicate the simplest to most complex ideas is an astounding thing, almost supernatural in itself.

    And then the Parrot of the Lord descended upon me and with the voice of his owner’s father said, “Tanto.” From there he went up to his cage, saying unto those gathered, “Popsicle” and “câlice”.

  29. eric says

    The ability to make sounds which serve to communicate the simplest to most complex ideas is an astounding thing, almost supernatural in itself…..Those are gifts given to mankind by God who created us. He gave those gifts to no other creature.

    Really? You’ve never seen a dog or cat communicate simple ideas, like “I want food?”

    If he’d been referring to language (with grammer and syntax), that statement would have been merely stupid. But by referring to sounds to communicate simple ideas, he really catapults himself into laugable clown. This is right up there with Sherri Shepherd’s “nothing predates Christians” comment.

  30. Scientismist says

    Lockout @14: The attempt to downgrade science by calling it merely conclusions from modeling works only if you don’t understand the provisional nature of all human knowledge.

    Lockout seems to think that what we think we see, hear, feel, taste, and touch is some kind of privileged data that partakes of absolute truth, while the conclusions of science are based upon instrumentation and modeling. This misconception may be based in Christian dogma (all truth is God’s truth), in postmodernism (all truth is cultural), or in scientific foundationalism (all truth is logically constructed from true sensory facts) — or perhaps just in an attempt at disingenuous humor (to be charitable).

    What Lockout (like many critics of science) doesn’t understand is that our senses are also instrumentation, and what we think we see, hear, etc., are the results of modeling that takes place in our evolved brains. (Some of the processing and abstraction takes place even earlier, for example, in the eyes: ours give privilege to straight lines; a frog’s eyes give privilege to movement). Everything we think we know is at best a highly probable conclusion. In philosophy of science the short way of saying it is to note that “facts are theory-laden.” Don’t think your senses can fool you? Ask a magician — or a neurologist. Oliver Sacks has made a career of pointing out how our senses can fool us.

  31. DaveL says

    Equally remarkable is the ability to reduce those sounds to written symbols universally understood and capable of conveying the ideas that those sounds represent. To suggest that all this is an accident of evolution belies the intellectual power language represents. Those are gifts given to mankind by God who created us. He gave those gifts to no other creature.

    Yeah, not so much.

  32. Zuma Musa says

    The following is the website in which it explains how single cells (unicellular organisms), could be transformed into a multicellular organism in the process of evolution.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/

    In this website, it mentions that single cells should have secreted enzymes initially so as to pull all the cells together to cause the ultimate formation of multicellular organism.

    The explanation to link up single cells to the formation of multicellular organism seems to be logical at a glance. However, detailed examination would have caused many queries to be brought forth.

    a)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the sea in the beginning of its evolution be hardened so as to cause them to be bound up to the ultimate formation of multicellular organism, i.e. algae? By logic, it could only be possible for unicellar organisms to be bound up in the dry place when many of them would have come together at a fixed place. When they finished the food supplies, the place dried up and so they stuck together. It was not possible to the formation of multicellular orgainism in the sea especially scientists assumed many were formed in the sea. The reason is simply that sea water was wet and it was not possible for numerous unicellular organism to be bound up tightly as a result of the existence of surrounding sea water. As that could be so, how could multicellular organism, i.e. algae, be able to be formed in the sea? The existence of the surrounding sea water would not cause numerous unicellular organism to be bound up tightly especially the existence of sea wave.

    b)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the land be able to be pooled up together if they would be located in different area in the land? It was also impossible for multicellular organisms to be pooled up in the land especially the existence of friction of rocks and sands.

    c)In the wide sea, it is impossible for numerous unicellular organisms to come together despite of their secreting. Let’s give an example. An unicellular organism in the North Pole would not be able to be pooled up to another unicellular organism that would be located in the South Pole. How could numerous unicellular organisms be able to come together so as to form multicellular organism when they were located different regions in the wide sea? The existence of sea wave would hinder them to come together as a pool. Besides, the existence of sea wave would also cause the secreted enzymes to spread all around the sea. As the discharge of enzymes could be spread all around the sea easily as a result of sea wave, it would not be possible for them to come together so as to form multicellular organism.

    d)By logic, when unicellular organism combined to turn up to multicellular organism, the function of each unicellular organism within the multicellular organism would remain the same. This is by virtue of every unicellular organism would react the same way in habit or in routine movement after the formation of multicellular organism. There should not be any reason why there should be any discrepancy of their behaviour between unicellular organism and multicellular organism especially multicellular organism, i.e. algae, has been treated by scientists to have its origin from unicellular organism. For example, how could it be possible that the capacity of regeneration for unicellular organism was present and yet there was a reduction in the capability for regeneration for multicellular organism? The presence of discrepancy between nunicellular and unicellar has caused us to ponder whether multicellular organism in the beginning of the creation should have its derivation from unicellular organism.

    Refer to the website address below pertaining to all the discrepancies between unicellular organisms and multicellular organisms:

    http://bankofbiology.blogspot.sg/2012/03/comparison-between-unicellular-and.html

  33. dingojack says

    Zuma Musa – I’m not a biologist (there are some here who are and can give a much more detailed explanation) but I can see several flaws in your assumptions:

    Multicellular organisms probably formed perhaps as early as 1.1 billion years ago, and that’s a long time.

    a) The proteins unicellular organisms produced on their surfaces would not have ‘drawn them together’ (except at very short distances). The proteins would have made them sticky. Like tiny velcro balls they would have stuck together. They might have produced chemicals that attracted cells together (these can be detected by cells at extremely low concentrations) but this would only help differentiate different colonies of cells.

    B) Cells could be ‘bound together’ (as you put it) at he sea’s surface. ‘Animal’ cells would be attracted to the higher concentrations of oxygen, ‘plan’t cells would be attracted by the higher concentrations of light. Once at the surface they would be unable to easily swim away becase of the surface tension of the water.
    They would also be constrained by changes in sea composition and temperature too (thermocline and halocline) as well as the physical boundaries of the sea itself (remember that continents of some form or other existed as early as ca. 4.1 billion years ago).
    Ice flows and ash/pumice rafts would be another barrier that would limit movement.

    c) Organisms could be easily wash into (an out of) tidal pools. The closeness of the moon (ca. 19000 km at around 4.2527 billion years ago, but at little further out by about 1.1 billion years ago) and the earth’s rapid rotation would create giant tides every few hours.

    dd) you are forgetting just how many cells exist in the oceans. There would be plenty of local cells to adhere to without having cells travel from one end of the Earth to the other.

    Hope that (kind of) helps.
    Dingo

  34. Zuma Musa says

    dingojack, You have mentioned that protein from unicellular orgainism might cause them to be sticky. However, It would not be as sticky as it should be since the sea water might have caused it to be diluted. Besides, the existence of sea wave might cause it not to be able to stick together easily.

    Despite the existence of sea’s tension on the water, the existence of strong sea wave might not cause them to be attached with each other.

  35. Zuma Musa says

    The protein that would be discharged by unicellular orgainisms would be diluted to the extent to lose its stickiness due to they were surrounded by a big pool of sea water. The defect of the surrounding big pool of sea water was it would cause them unlikely to be stuck together.

  36. dingojack says

    Firstly you’re neglecting the effect of small tidal pools, secondly you’re neglecting the vast number of unicellular organisms per litre of sea water.
    Dingo

  37. Zuma Musa says

    Even if it was in small tidal pools, there was still wind due to there was no high building to block to prevent strong wind to blow on it. Could you provide a realistic photograph or evidence to prove the non-existence of wind in primitive life? Or else, it was just an unrealisitc assumption and could not prove the existence of evolution in the past.

    Do you have any evidence to prove that there was vast number of unicellular orgainism per litre of sea water? You have to bear in mind the numerous unicellular organisms would have been spread all over the gigantic sea. It might have turned up to have a few or none of these unicellular organisms when they would have to be widely spread all over the sea.

  38. Zuma Musa says

    Could you provide evidence to prove that there was vast number of unicellular orgainisms per litre of sea water? You have to bear in mind the numerous unicellular organisms would have been spread all over the gigantic sea. It might have turned up to have a few or none of these unicellular organisms when they would have to be widely spread all over the sea. This seemed logically in the beginning due to everything was just presumed by scientists to be in their very beginning in which unicellular organism began to flourish in this world. We could not guarantee that every inch of the sea would have unicellular organisms or else archaeologists in the past would have found out every inch of the sea could locate the fossils of unicellular organisms. Indeed, archaeologists could only discover a few places to have these fossils instead of the entire sea of this world. It does not provide the evidence that unicellular organisms did widely spread throughlout this world. Thus, the absence of evidence could not prove sea water could be filled with numerous unicellular organisms in the beginning.

  39. dingojack says

    I’m a little confused, what has wind got to with it? Wind can push the ocean up into ripples that can be carried a long way (due to the efficiency of the energy transfer). But an object floating in the ocean won’t move much due to waves, rather they tend to run forward of the wave crest, get overtaken by it, then run back down from wave crest. Effectively they travel in a vertical cycle that leaves them (more or less) in the same place.
    In tidal pools however wind can increase the rate of evaporation – this would force any unicellular life closer together. Which would increase the likelihood of them sticking together.
    Dingo
    ——-
    A note on timing:
    4.65 – 4.55 billion years ago. proto-Earth formed.
    4.527 billion years ago Mars-sized body collides with the Earth. Moon formed (Oldest moon rocks).
    3.8 billion years ago. Oldest indirect evidence of biological processes. Pyrite (Fe2O3) bands and Sulphate beds (SO4^2-) created by chemosynthetic life oxidising and reducing (respectively) to create energy.
    3.3 billion years ago. Oldest reliable fossilised life.
    1.1 billion years ago?. Multicellularity.
    800 Million years ago. Plants and animals diverge.

  40. dingojack says

    The widespread ‘red-banded’ rocks (so called because of the orange-red bands of Iron (III) oxide) shows that there were enough organisms (Cynobacteria) producing oxygen (via photosynthesis) to first oxygenate the sea (and later the atmosphere) starting 2.4 billions years ago (1,300,000,000 years before the events we are discussing) . This could only have occurred if they existed in vast numbers (even they can’t break the laws of physics) .
    As for proof of vast numbers of organisms existing in the oceans in the past, you can’t go past the (much, much younger, Cretaceous Period) Dover cliffs. Fossilised coccolithophores, (single-celled algae that construct a calcium carbonate plates for protection) died in vast numbers to form the thick layer of chalk (in some places 350ft thick) and their skeletons are preserved within it in exquisite detail.
    Dingo

  41. Zuma Musa says

    The existence of wind that would blow on sea to create sea wave would cause unicellular organisms not be able to come together and be stuck with each other so as to form a multicellullar organism.

    How could the increase in evaporation be able to cause unicellular organisms to come together? Any evidence or it is merely unrealistic assumption.

    How many places did archaeologists discover the fossils of red banded rocks that were covered with Cynobacteria? It is in all countries and in every place. If the fossils of red banded rocks could not be found everywhere in this world, how could it be they were widely spread in the beginning?

    Do you have any photographs to prove that fossils of red branded rocks could be found everywhere in this earth so as to support your comment? Or else, it should be unrealistic assumption without any sufficient proof.

  42. Zuma Musa says

    The following is the sentence that you have made:

    ‘ they tend to run forward of the wave crest, get overtaken by it, then run back down from wave crest.”

    I fully agree. As a result of unicellular organisms run forward and backward in the sea as a result of sea wave, it might cause them to be departed from each other far away. As that could be so, how could these unicellular organisms come together to stick with each other so as to form a multicellular organism?

Leave a Reply