PZ Myers. 2005 Aug 06. Ape to Man: it hasn't aired, and the creationists are already gibbering. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/ape_to_man_it_hasnt_aired_and_the_creationists_are_already_gibbering/>. Accessed 2008 Nov 20.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Saturday, August 06, 2005
Ape to Man: it hasn't aired, and the creationists are already gibbering
Ekzept mentioned this series in the comments, and I definitely will try to catch this Ape to Man program on the History Channel tomorrow. It could be cheesy, it could be informative, but one thing is for sure, it has drawn out the creationists. The History Channel has a forum on the program, and it's jam-packed with the usual fallacies. It also a few examples of ignorance that will turn your stomach.
I don't want to be black and I don't want to be an ape.I think that a lot of this so called science supports a leftist agenda. I am proud of being a white man we have conquered the whole earth and brought forth a civilization unparalleled in history. Yet all we get is grief about how we stole everything speak with forked tongues and all kinds of crap such as this. Yet no one has a problem with using and even coveting the white mans technology no one is ever clamoring to move from an all white neighborhood because of the crime. On the contrary we have made great strides in excepting other races and religions among us. How many races if in control of the world could have done better. No one ever speaks of the great comfort that the powerful white nations gives to those who would be attacked and torn to pieces if it wasn't for white men protecting them from extinction, brought on many times by their own races and cultures. Instead we are made to feel that we caused all other races to be crime ridden. Recently it has been discovered that British have changed very little since the last ice age could this mean we white people were always white. I mean how disgusted would a black man be to know that his race was once white it sure takes all the pride out of your race and then to even suggest we all were lower forms of life like a damn monkey. If being proud of my own race, "I have no right as a white person to have such pride", makes me a racists I guess I am a racists. Since I have been so bold as to suggest this, I would also like to know more about the Nazi's, did they have a point about jewish businessmen losing the first world war for them? Heaven forbid someone actually take an indepth look at this question for fear of being called a racist. While I find what the Nazi's did unbelievably evil, as I am a christian and believe that the Jews are Gods chosen people. As I find something's that christians have done such as witch burning's evil. I find the money grubbing of some Jews just as evil and I want to know how much truth is their to it how much propaganda do they lay down in our country manipulating our opinions with this money. No one likes feeling as if they are getting ones side of the story and being made a fool of as to what the facts are. Just to say the Nazi's were evil and leave it at that is not history its jewish propaganda. There must have been some kind of reason for such hate did the snow white innocent jew just move into germany become hated for just being a jew, and become persecuted for nothing more than a religious belief. I don't think this is the way it happen usually something provokes people's thinking. I want to know ALL the history of this subject and I don't like feeling like I could be being duped by paid for jewish propaganda. In the same way that the indigenous people of America were just known as evil savage indians until recently when our people had to own up to some injustices performed against them, when is something like this going to happen for the german people?
Charming, huh? The whole forum is cluttered with nonsense like this. Another:
The deceptionIn response to those that think evolution real and valid. I've read many of your posts with with total embarrassment and disgust. Evolution and great ages, is one of the biggest deceptions ever conjured up to deceive people. When one really studies it and does not blindly accept it, evolution is impossible and does not make sense. Fact is we are not some cosmic accident, some higher form of "animal" we are wonderfully made. Look around you and at yourself. Take for example your eyes or your brain, (yes, my wife and I DO use ours) or the conception and birth of a child. What about an egg, then into a caterpillar, then into a butterfly or what about how the earth is placed just so in out solar system. A degree too close to the sun, we fry, a degree too far away, we freeze. All these things are the results of chance, mere accident? Hardly. Many scientists and professors don't blindly, stupidly accept macro-evolution. They know it is bogus…
And it just goes on and on from there. It's stunning, in its own way—I don't think I've ever seen such a high density of stupidity since I read the Wizbang blog. I'm not even going to try to deal with it now; I'll wait until the program is aired, and maybe there will be some specific issues that can be dealt with other than that generic angry creationist cluelessness.
-
The racism in the first quote is absolutly sickening. Ugh.
#: Posted by on 08/06 at 07:51 PM
-
I think that a lot of this so called science supports a leftist agenda. I am proud of being a white man we have conquered the whole earth and brought forth a civilization unparalleled in history.
But can you conquer the comma?#: Posted by on 08/06 at 07:57 PM - I had to wonder if that first quote was carefully contrived parody. Sadly, parody has become impossible with creationist thinking (and I use that term loosely).
- I have seen on several places before the tight connection between racism and creationism. I'd like to learn more about the underlying psychology of this phenomenon.
-
A degree too close to the sun, we fry, a degree too far away, we freeze.
A degree in what angle?#: Posted by on 08/06 at 08:04 PM -
"a degree too close to the sun, we fry, a degree too far away, we freeze."
WTF? From what I recollect from my high school Astronomy class, the Earth revolves around the sun in an elliptical orbit. Therefore, the proximity of the Earth to the Sun changes dramatically throughout the year, yet our seasons are not a result of this, but rather the angle of the Earth on its axis, hence the opposite of seasons in the Northern vs. Southern hemisphere. Ah, crikey. This is getting ridiculous. -
Racism has been put forward as one of many hypotheses to explain the psychological motivation of creationists. See, for instance this. I have not seen a really good explanation for this, though racist comments by creationists, like the first one quoted in this post, are common on boards and blogs.
Stephen Ducat, in his book "The Wimp Factor" explains creationism as a fear by anxious white males that the mythical animalistically oversexual (and big-penised) black men wil steal white women away. Interesting hypothesis, but I would like to know more. -
I think the tagline on the show is "has evolution made a monkey out of you? go to blah blah blah.com and have your say." I think I saw that in a print ad for the show. It made me want to throw up. Guess what losers, it doesn't matter what you believe, what is true is true, what is not is not. I fear the whole "believe in G*d, and he is all powerful" thing kind of is training people to just skimp on facts and stuff, by basically saying, what you want to be true will be so, just believe. Those people, while bummed about their descent from earlier hominids/hominoids will not change the fact that that is indeed where they came from. They are sad sad people.
#: Posted by Pinko Punko on 08/06 at 08:35 PM
- The first comment is also very anti-Semitic as well.
-
Coturnix is right. Um, I just skimmed that asshat's comments but what does evolution have to do with the Nazi's feeling the Jews stabbed them in the back during the Great War? Huh? And that idiot is wrong, the topic *has* been studied.
I've long thought that the creationist mindset boils down to "I don't want to think that I might be descended from blacks, because that would ultimately make me a...a.." [head explodes]
And, yeah, paragraph breaks are your friend.#: Posted by on 08/06 at 09:30 PM -
the proximity of the Earth to the Sun changes dramatically throughout the year, yet our seasons are not a result of this, but rather the angle of the Earth on its axis, hence the opposite of seasons in the Northern vs. Southern hemisphere.
My son had a science teacher in 4th grade who said the poles were colder because they are farther from the sun than the equator. Brr! I suppose any kind of nonsense can get a hearing.#: Posted by decrepitoldfool on 08/06 at 09:33 PM -
"I don't want to be black" is a one man argument against intelligent design. If an intelligent designer was watching over every creature's making, he sure missed that one.
#: Posted by Carl Isaacson on 08/06 at 09:42 PM
-
I, for one, like the unintended truth in one sentence:
On the contrary we have made great strides in excepting other races and religions among us.
Indeed the white Christians have, indeed they have... -
actually, the experience of seeing these various creationist folk come out in advance of airing Ape to Man makes me think the entire creationist vs truth thing has to do with sexuality and self-identity more than anything else. i'm coming to see that people who embrace stuff like Christianity, Islam, or Judaism zealously are trying to fill a gap in their sexual lives. like it or not, psychologically, life (= aversion to death) is about SEX.
so, for instance, i suspect the London bombers were simply criminals pushed to their acts by encounters with strong Western women who simply did not sucuumb to the bombers desires and inclinations, despite what the Koran might have to say about the matter.
and i suspect racists and similar folk are threatened in their sexuality by basic illusions regarding prospective competitors prowess or a desire to end-run sexuality by seizing immortality directly, a la Jesus.
surely if such influences and factors can affect something as seemingly peripheral as choice of automotive vehicle, it's plausible it can influence broader and deeper choices. -
Creationists are simply the stupidest people on the face of the earth. Period. Full stop.
#: Posted by Martin Wagner on 08/07 at 12:15 AM
-
I mean how disgusted would a black man be to know that his race was once white it sure takes all the pride out of your race and then to even suggest we all were lower forms of life like a damn monkey.
Is he really that stupid? Since the human species originated in Africa, it is rather plausible that we were all black at one stage. Also, I have a tendency to believe that most non-racists wouldn't give a damn about what colour of skin their ancestors had, especially not thousands of years ago.
If being proud of my own race, "I have no right as a white person to have such pride", makes me a racists I guess I am a racists.
As a representative of teh white race, I say that given your contribution, you have absolutely no right to be proud to be a white person. Nor a human, or even a living being.
While I find what the Nazi's did unbelievably evil, as I am a christian and believe that the Jews are Gods chosen people.
So had it been a different group of people, then it would have been OK, as they are not God's chosen people?
I find the money grubbing of some Jews just as evil and I want to know how much truth is their to it how much propaganda do they lay down in our country manipulating our opinions with this money.
Could you be a little more specific - what money grubbing by what Jews? And money grubbing (what ever that is), is equally evil to the Holocaust?
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but is the whole concept of money grubbing to get as much wealth as possible, and not spend it? Then how come that these stereotypical, and apparently Nazi-like in their evil, money grubbing Jews are speding their ill-gotten wealth on propaganda? And what purpose does the propaganda have? What is the goal of it?
No one likes feeling as if they are getting ones side of the story and being made a fool of as to what the facts are. Just to say the Nazi's were evil and leave it at that is not history its jewish propaganda.
You know, he is right. We don't know if they were evil. I mean, I hear that Hitler was kind to animals and his friends' children. Doesn't that count for something? What is the killing of six million Jews, and at least five million other humans compared to that?
If the word 'evil' has any meaning at all, it is to describe people like the Nazis and their deeds. Much like the words 'ignorance' and 'racist' are fit to use to describe the poster.
I think that if too many of these people start posting on behalf of ID Creationism, we'll have a much easier time. I know that some people agreee with him, but even most of them would not state their views so publicly.
Orac, are you going to take this guy to pieces at your blog?#: Posted by on 08/07 at 01:07 AM -
Oh WOW! That first guy you quote...just wow. How does someone like that even function? All that dumb just simmering away under the surface waiting for release.
Well I am with him on one thing, if he doesn't want to be an ape or black, then that's fine by me. I am perfectly happy not to share a species and an ancestry with the guy. I am also perfectly happy to be an ape, an African ape too, and probably an ape whose ancestors were "black" apes at some point. Is there an excommunication process for people like him? Preferably one with an axe of some description. Only a small axe, I'm not that violent!
It's guys like this that amaze me, it's the complete lack of clues about ANYTHING. In one comment he has ignored all of science, most of ethical philosophy, and is making good inroads on being sickeningly ignorant of history too. Just how much dumb can one individual come out with? As much as I hate to make judgement calls, and as much as I find there is some value in a certain narrow type of relativism when it comes to certain ideas and ethics, this guy and the opinions he has come out with are as invalid, as wrong, as can be. They don't even have recourse to the available evidence, they only serve to alienate and degrade other arbitrary groups of people.
Argh, this is too much idiocy to read with a hangover, I'm off to get some tablets!#: Posted by on 08/07 at 01:28 AM -
Oh my! That's really all I can say to those posts.
#: Posted by Bourgeois Nerd on 08/07 at 01:36 AM
-
"My son had a science teacher in 4th grade who said the poles were colder because they are farther from the sun than the equator. Brr! I suppose any kind of nonsense can get a hearing."
I was flipping through a kid's book on space recently (I work at a bookstore) and it "explained" that astronauts are weightless because they are so far from earth.
I really, really want to hide that book.#: Posted by on 08/07 at 02:05 AM - Regarding the first quote: apparently the author of the quote hasn't gotten the memo that Nazism is a natural consequence of evolution.
- did someone punctuate his equilibrium, or did his family tree get mixed up with the sentence diagrams.
-
Oh, found a good quote:
Just wanted to say... you people arguing rhohn should be careful throwing the words "fact" and "theory" around and then boasting that you understand the definitions. For anyone in the field of science to label anything as a "fact" would be contrary to the foundational rules of science. NOTHING can be proven, only disproven. Gravity, is a theory, a well tested, seemingly undisprovable event, however, it is not a "fact". Just be careful how you label things.
Also, the reason that evolution is labeled a theory is actually a product of misunderstanding, not a promotion from the science field. People fought the teaching of evolution, but in the end allowed for it to be taught as long as it was taught as a "theory", which was exactly what they did NOT want but were ignorant of the scientific meaning of the word so were ignorant of what exactly they were agreeing to. So, the scientists took it and ran and have been laughing ever since.
I've got to say, rhohn does make a good point, whether he says it in the best way or not, and whether or not any of you will admit it. There just isn't the kind of fossil evidence you would expect from millions of years of evolution.
Also, I think it would be very interesting to confront evolution from a genetic point of view. Many biologists and genetists today agree that the foundational ideas supporting evolution just don't hold up in their fields. Organisms never seem to create new information in their DNA that would be required to create a new species, only lose it. So what exactly are we "observing" in the lab that "proves" evolution true? Often times we only see what we want to see and ignore the obvious contradictions.
Don't you love the way the he totally fails to understand that while scientific theories can't be proven, they are based on observable facts. We can observe that the flu virus evolute (or Darwinate), so it's a fact. We can also observe the fossil records of past species, so we know they existed. Those two facts, as well as many others are used as a basis for the theory of evolution.
I also love the way he explains why evolution is called a theory. Maybe he could explain why it is also called a theory outside the US?
Also, as a layman, I would love to know what kind of fossil record you would expect - maybe he can clearify it? It seems to me that we have quite a few fossil records, spanning quite a few years, but maybe he could tell us more precisely how many is needed?
I am also worried, because I must admit that I don't have a complete fossil record of my family going all the way back to Adam and Eve, so does this mean that my ancestors were spawns of Satan?
In regards to the DNA canard, haven't they gotten tired of it yet? Of course, that paragraphs begs the question, which "biologists and genetists"?#: Posted by on 08/07 at 05:46 AM - Actually, the thing about facts vs. theories is misguided. Gravity is a fact: when things are thrown in any direction, they fall down, and based on more recent observations, things are attracted to other things with large masses. Newtonian mechanics, general relativity, and superstring theory are all theories of gravity. Similarly, evolution is a fact: organisms have evolved over billions of years from a common ancestor. Lamarckism, Darwinism, and neo-Darwinism are all theories of evolution.
-
The first poster might be interested to know that while we were all black once, there is also a good chance that we were all white before that. Do you think that makes him slightly happier that white might have come first, or even more enraged that we might actually be related to black people?
I've done a quick post about it here#: Posted by hotrockhopper on 08/07 at 06:26 AM -
I love this: "Evolution and great ages, is one of the biggest deceptions ever conjured up to deceive people."
How about Religion and great white beings in the sky is one of the biggest deceptions ever conjured up to deceive people? Or the opiate of the people?
These people seem to be on something.
-
I find it intersting how so many are railing against these two quotes.
The repugnance expressed and the criticisms offered are justified.
But...
People on this forum can't honestly believe that these two quotes represent all Creationists. In my expereince, those individuals and organizations that most prominently represent the various creation perspectives are universally opposed to racism and would likewise join you to denounce the racism expressed in the first quote and correct the poor science expressed in the seond statement.
It seems to me that the most idiotic creationist position has been selected from the History Channel discussion forum, and then an implicit, sweeping, and unwarranted generalization has been made such that it is now concluded that these two statements represent the view of all creationists. Having erected a pathetic strawman, everyone delights in knocking him down, and feels good doing so.
There is no legitimate connection between creationism and racism because there is no connection between the biblical view on human origins and racism.#: Posted by on 08/07 at 06:47 AM -
The first poster might be interested to know that while we were all black once, there is also a good chance that we were all white before that. Do you think that makes him slightly happier that white might have come first, or even more enraged that we might actually be related to black people?
Since white people have become white as an adaptation to Europe's cold climate after white-skinned apes evolved into dark-skinned humans, this shouldn't be much consolation to white racists. -
You've never heard of Henry Morris? The Hamite "theory"? It was also used to justify slavery, you know. The Biblical explanation for the origins of the races is right there in the story of Noah, and the flood myth is one of the centerpieces of so-called "scientific" creationism.
And no, you're wrong. I picked two representative examples of the creationist nonsense being spouted in that forum. If you want, you can try and find an example of intelligent disagreement with evolution there—good luck. -
Arrgh I didn't need to know about that forum.
Something inside me just can't let anti-evolutionist BS go. I read some ignorant statement like "Lucy has been proven to be just a chimpanzee" and I just have to reply. It's the sheer arrogance of the anti-evolutionist that drives me up the wall. Unless I reply I will be pissed off all day. Perhaps I really do have no free-will on this matter.#: Posted by on 08/07 at 07:46 AM -
The same Creationist quasi-neo-Nazism can be found with Kent Hovind, who notoriuosly pimps "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in his lectures.
The Answers in Genesis folks have distanced themselves from the traditional racist interpretations of the Bible*, and IDers have no reason to talk about the subject at all.
*http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp#: Posted by on 08/07 at 07:55 AM -
PZ, that would be based on <a href="http://www.thebricktestament.com//genesis/noahs_insobriety/gn09_18-19.html"> this </a href>story from The Bible, wouldn't it? Always been a personal wtf Bible story.
(Word for submission: gonad!)#: Posted by on 08/07 at 08:28 AM -
Arse.
This is the link. (Cheers to hotrockhopper for sorting it out for me)#: Posted by on 08/07 at 10:18 AM -
" "a degree too close to the sun, we fry, a degree too far away, we freeze."
WTF?"
Jamie, steve, in all fairness I think the poster was refering to the habitable zone around the Sun, and that 'degree' was loosely meant as 'a tad' - the poster was rather loose in thinking and language otherwise too. :-(
It is an anthropic argument, ie based on our existence. There are all sorts of these from truistic to strong. I consider most of them worthless for differing reasons.
This is a truistic one - that the habited Earth is situated within our suns habitable zone is a truism. You can't infer much from that. Certainly not enough to conclude that it was not 'an accident'.#: Posted by on 08/07 at 11:19 AM -
"Newtonian mechanics"
Alon, great commentary. But I think you mean 'Newtonian gravitation' here. He added that theory to his mechanics to explain gravity, as you say.#: Posted by on 08/07 at 11:41 AM -
Oops. "differing reasons" - different reasons. I guess my english evolved from ape grunts...
#: Posted by on 08/07 at 11:46 AM
-
I have heard of Henry Morris (by the way I vehemently disagree with his brand of creationism). While I have not read most of what Henry Morris has written, I doubt that you can show me in his writings any racist tendencies on his part.
As for the Hamite theory as a justification for racism...
There is a difference between using scripture to justify an idealogy (which is what the Hamite theory does) and properly extracting the intended teaching from the text. The doctrine of creation in general, and the doctrine of human origins derived from the biblical text in no way concludes or teaches racism.#: Posted by on 08/07 at 01:06 PM -
I just checked my library copies of the Genesis Flood and Scientific Creationism, both written by Henry Morris. He does not espouse the Hammite theory, in fact states that it is impossible from the biblical text to know from which of Noah's three sons African population groups descended.
He does believe that the racial difference among people stemmed from microevolutionary changes after their spread from the Mesopotamia after the Flood.
In essence Morris' explanation for racial differences is the same as that espoused by the Out of Africa hypothesis. The only difference is that Morris demands that the microevolutionary changes accure in a few thousands of years.
In fact Morris takes evolutionary biologists to task for using race as a classification for humans. He believes that humans are all of one kind.#: Posted by on 08/07 at 01:18 PM -
yep i think that's one forum purged of ignorance. Now the worst that can happen is more ignorance overflowing after the program has aired.
#: Posted by on 08/07 at 04:36 PM
-
The Sky Father,
The Earth Mother,
The Dying Son.....
and then just variations on the theme
via -
Seems like the first comment has been removed. Reading teh posting guidelines I saw that racism would get your posts removed, so that's probably the explanaition.
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 04:43 AM
-
Does anyone know how you report a quote mining to TalkOrigins? Through the normal feedback? One of the commentors over at History Channel did a bit of quote mining I couldn't find in the archives.
He wrote this:
Okay, how about this. The present state of evolutionary theory has for the most part discarded the "survival of the fittest" .
STEPHEN JAY GOULD: THE PATTERN OF LIFE'S HISTORY [5.23.01]
"There is no progress in evolution. The fact of evolutionary change through time doesn't represent progress as we know it. Progress isn't inevitable. Much of evolution is downward in terms of morphological complexity, rather than upward. We're not marching toward some greater thing."
"Since you always have mutations, why don't things continue changing? You either have to say that the particular form is highly adapted, optimal, and exists in a stable environment, or you have to be very puzzled."
Since that seemed rather unlike Gould to say such things unless it was in a context, I did a little digging, and made this reply:
Is there something about bearing false witness? The first paragraph is is in full:
There is no progress in evolution. The fact of evolutionary change through time doesn't represent progress as we know it. Progress is not inevitable. Much of evolution is downward in terms of morphological complexity, rather than upward. We're not marching toward some greater thing. The actual history of life is awfully damn curious in the light of our usual expectation that there's some predictable drive toward a generally increasing complexity in time. If that's so, life certainly took its time about it: five-sixths of the history of life is the story of single-celled creatures only.
And it continues:
I would like to propose that the modal complexity of life has never changed and it never will, that right from the beginning of life's history it has been what it is; and that our view of complexity is shaped by our warped decision to focus on only one small aspect of life's history; and that the small bit of the history of life that we can legitimately see as involved in progress arises for an odd structural reason and has nothing to do with any predictable drive toward it.
I'm working on an incubus of a project on the structure of evolutionary theory, an attempt to show what has to be altered and expanded from the strict Darwinian model to make a more adequate evolutionary theory.
Basically, there are three themes. The first is the hierarchical theory of natural selection--selection operating on so many levels, both above and below. Richard Dawkins, who still wishes to explain virtually everything at the level of genic selection, is right about one thing; gene selection does operate. He's wrong in saying that it's the source of evolution; it's a source. I don't know what the relative strength and power of the levels are - it depends on the particular problem - but gene selection is not the dominant one, by any means. It certainly happens; it may be responsible for the increase in the number of multiple copies of some kinds of DNA within evolutionary lineages, for example; it's responsible for some things
The second theme is the extent to which strict adaptationism has to be compromised by considering the developmental and genetic restraints at work upon organisms, when you start considering the organism as a figure that pushes back against the force of natural selection. The best way to explain it is metaphorically. Under really strict Darwinism (Darwin is not a strict Darwinian), a population is like a billiard ball: you get a lot of variability, but the variability is random, in all directions. Natural selection is like a pool cue. Natural selection hits the ball, and the ball goes wherever selection pushes it. It's an externalist, functionalist, adaptationist theory. In the nineteenth century, Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin, developed an interesting metaphor: he said an organism is a polyhedron; it rests on one of the facets, one of the surfaces of a polyhedron. You may still need the pool cue of natural selection to hit it - it doesn't move unless there is a pushing force - but it's a polyhedron, meaning that an internal constitution shapes its form and the pathways of change are limited. There are certain pathways that are more probable, and there are certain ones that aren't accessible, even though they might be adaptively advantageous. It really behooves us to study the influence of these structural constraints upon Darwinian and functional adaptation; these are very different views.
The third theme is the extent to which a crucial argument in Darwinism - namely, that you can look at what's happening to pigeons on a generational scale and extrapolate that into the immensity of geological time - really doesn't work, that when you enter geological time there are a whole set of other processes and principles, like what happens in mass extinctions, that make the extrapolationist model not universal.
I'm attempting to marry those three themes - hierarchical selection, internal constraint, and the immensity of geological time - into a more adequate general view of evolutionary theory.
So in other words, Gould did believe in natural selection, which is what "survival of the fittest" refers to.
The second paragraph was not written by Gould at all, but by Stuart Kauffman as a comment.
For those interested in reading the article in question, it can be found here. My quotes are from the start, while the Kauffman comment is on the last page.
What is it with (ID) Creationists and quotes?#: Posted by on 08/08 at 06:33 AM -
"What is it with (ID) Creationists and quotes?"
Instead of natural selection they use Intelligent Design on quotes. (It probably used to be Creationism out of thin air, but that didn't work at all...)#: Posted by on 08/08 at 04:34 PM