“I’m not a scientist, but…” » « Reminder: I’ll be in Hartford on Wednesday evening

Eric Hovind living down to his reputation

Typical creationist misrepresentation: Eric Hovind got together with a guy named Darek Isaacs to tell us all about evolution, and stupidity follows, predictably. The weird part starts around 5:50 in the video, in which Isaacs declares that evolution is all about the man propagating his DNA…and you can stop right there. I guess women have nothing to do with this evolution business. But he babbles on with this naive version of evolution which is all about death to the weakest, and that apparently all that matters in reproduction is the frequency of intercourse, whether the woman is willing or not. They don’t seem capable of considering the possibility that perhaps other factors than ejaculation play a role in the successful propagation of human beings.

Oh, well, just watch this. Rebecca Watson deals with it more entertainingly.

“I’m not a scientist, but…” » « Reminder: I’ll be in Hartford on Wednesday evening

Comments

  1. gog says

    I have a better question: if you have fifty shekels of silver to give to a woman’s piece of property’s father, is it okay to rape take her as a wife without his express permission? I think we all know what Hovind’s “Good Book” says about that.

  2. gijoel says

    If Hovind’s claim was true, then why are there so many species with male sexual displays designed to attract females? Why bother with bright plumage when you can just take what you want?

  3. jeffreykramer says

    Just for added irony: the proposition that some capacities or behavior provide a reproductive advantage, and will therefore spread through a population, is pretty much the only part of “evolution” that creationists actually accept. They just say it’s “adaptation” rather than “evolution.” (And “they are still lions/tigers/bears!”)

    So if you creationists believe in “adaptation,” and rape is adaptive, how can you say that rape is wrong?

  5. ck says

    Well, you can’t expect moral behaviour from a Dalek. They hate everything that isn’t exactly like them.

    Oh, Darek not Dalek. Well, it still works in this case.

  6. says

    They don’t seem capable of considering the possibility that perhaps other factors than ejaculation play a role in the successful propagation of human beings.

    Well, but since that’s the only part in reproduction they’re willing to take it quite explains the misconception. The massive amount of work is for *Ferengi voive* feeeeemales.

  7. Galactic Fork says

    Soooo, does this mean that they think all female DNA is the same and the only real differences come from the male DNA? That would explain the whole male variability hypothesis.

  8. newenlightenment says

    Maybe Rebecca’s not being literal enough in her interpretation of the commandment ‘be fruitful and multiply’ it could just mean ‘eat bananas and do maths’.

    The Heisenberg quip reminded me of the old joke: Werner Heisenberg is pulled over whilst driving. ‘Do you know how fast you were going?’ ask the police. ‘No, but I know exactly where I am’

  9. says

    OT

    #8

    I prefer the other version of the joke:

    Heisenberg is pulled over by the police.
    Police: Do you know you were going at 90 km/h?
    Heisenberg: Well, thanks a lot, now I’m lost!

  10. numerobis says

    Shorter Isaacs: nature doesn’t work the way nature works, because it doesn’t pass moral judgements.

  11. colnago80 says

    Re tomfrog @ #9

    If Heisenberg was doing 90 km/h on the Autobahn, he would be given a ticket for driving too slow.

  12. David Marjanović says

    Maybe Rebecca’s not being literal enough in her interpretation of the commandment ‘be fruitful and multiply’ it could just mean ‘eat bananas and do maths’.

    O hai! I maded you an Internetz from lavender cookiez. And I did not eated it.

    (Too bad the puns only work in English. *pout*)