you can hear einstein’s ghost weep…

Two of my favorite things about blogging are reading comments and talking to my readers, especially when it leads to a fun and engaging debate. However, some of the replies I get just beg for the kind of response that can only be done in a full blown post. Previously, it was a comment about alternative medicine that managed to cram virtually every pro-quackery cliché out there into a few sentences and an unintentionally ironic set of anti-science fallacies which epitomized most creationist arguments. And now comes this little tirade which would make the ghost of Albert Einstein’s jaw not just drop, but fall off its hinges if he were to come across it.

Before you proceed though, I’m probably obligated by some sort of law to notify you that we’re about to plunge into some of the most asinine commentary about science I’ve ever read. Unless your neurons can withstand the searing flames of stupid, you should look away now. Still reading? Well, you were warned…

How can you claim the Earth is not around 6000 years old? Don’t you know that: 1. time is relative 2. the speed of light is actually slowing down.

Actually, I’ve heard that a lot and from a physics standpoint, this is just meaningless babble if you pardon my bluntness. Yes, time is a relative concept. Absolutely correct. However, what’s meant by this notion is that we can’t use our arbitrary measurements of time and expect them to be perfectly consistent in every place across the universe because of the disturbances in time and space caused by gravity and the speed of moving stars, planets and other celestial objects. The only way you can compare the degree of relativity is by comparing the flow of time for two like objects, not to some random calendar. I’m also not sure why the speed of light would be slowing down and how, or what it has to do with the relative flow of time for different objects in space. Even if the Earth was traveling at a relativistic velocity (which it’s not), time would keep flowing the same way for us.

Now, having this not even wrong argument by itself would be bad enough. But it seems that Mr. Johnson just doesn’t do things halfway and while he’s at it, he’s also going to assemble some tattered Frankenstein of old, well worn apologetics and intelligent design arguments.

So it may seem utterly ridiculous to imagine there were countless billions of stars in the sky, when you could actually count them. Yet we NOW know the truth backs up a Biblical claim written 3,000 years ago… ie.. the stars in the sky number as much as the sand on the sea shore.

From the most pristine locations on the planet, you can see less than 8,500 stars in the night sky. But they’re pretty hard to count so in ancient times, many civilizations referred to the number of stars as countless. While the claim that the Bible somehow accurately predicts how many stars are out there is widely circulated by the apologetics establishment, it’s wrong in practice because we can only see so many of them from Earth, and because the quote in question, Jeremiah 33:22, says no such thing. Instead it reads…

I will make the descendants of David my servant and all the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.

Basically, this is an out of context quote which loses all meaning when taken solely by itself and says nothing specific about the number of stars. Of course, after giving us another argument after which it would be best to just quit and leave it at that, Mr. Johnson keeps pouring on the ridiculousness thusly…

Anyway, the first scientists were not indoctrinated Atheists as they tend to be today, and just as a priest has his predisposition on a certain outcome, so does an Atheist. Where we can all agree is in being open and truthful with the facts. Atheists had their time when evolution theory couldn’t be refuted scientifically, but now it is entirely laughable to attempt to claim Nothing created Everything.

Wow. Where to start with this homunculus of asinine assertions? Since when have scientists been somehow indoctrinated as atheists? How would that explain Ken Miller and Francis Collins who are devoutly religious in their attitudes but still consider themselves scientists and produce work of major scientific value and merit? I also want to take issue with the ironic arrogance of creationists who ridicule evolutionary basics by saying that it’s impossible for nothing to create everything. It’s like coming up to the blackboard in class, writing that 2+2 is equal to five, then proudly telling the math teacher to shove it. If you don’t know what the theory actually states, maybe you should pipe down for a minute and do a little studying first. Evolution is not the Big Bang, nor has it anything to do with abiogenesis beyond being a side effect of how life formed. The nothing to everything retort is a ridiculous strawman that does nothing but show the ignorance of the person who uses it.

DNA has a code more complex than a software program, and is very specific in its transfer… mistakes or mutations cause errors, not improvements… EVER!

Oh my, I was going to point out that this is a completely unsubstantiated statement that has no basis in reality and shows that Mr. Johnson doesn’t even know the simplest points of evolutionary theory but the big all caps “ever!” convinced me of the error of my ways. Ok, no, not really.

please don’t pretend that a virus or bacteria changing its characteristics to get around immunities is a mutation, those are its built in survival mechanisms and are the equivalent to building muscle by working out… arnold didn’t mutate huge biceps

Again, this isn’t even wrong. We’re now descending into complete and utter blithering nonsense. This concept could only work if we ignore all the science done over the last 50 years and just start comparing apples to jet engines on a sudden whim. Equating the growth of protein strands in muscle as a response to stress and a well known mechanism generating countless random mutations in viruses and bacteria a very tiny fraction of which can get around our immune system and antibiotics, could only be done by someone who didn’t just take a few too many naps in biology class, but spent his middle and high school science classes in a coma.

Darwin’s mutation theories say [that] a frog getting eaten by birds decides to grow a shell and in 2 million years becomes a turtle, which is B.S.

Oh. My. Dear. Sweet. FSM. This already gigantic pile of pure, weapons grade imbecility just got even worse. If someone, anyone, could just tell me this was a Poe and snap me out of this nightmare! How did Darwin, who knew nothing about genetics or mutations and worked exclusively on natural selection, possibly come up with something like this? Ah, that’s right. He didn’t. That was Jean Baptiste Lamarck, whose theory was rejected as ridiculous right after he concocted it by pretty much everyone, including Darwin. Of course this scenario is utter nonsense which is why it’s never been a part of evolutionary theory.

The funny thing is that even from a Biblical standpoint, the idea that our planet is just 6,000 to 10,000 years old is a complete guesstimate based on woefully incomplete and arbitrary chronology. But here we have people who proudly grasp on to something that wasn’t even in the Bible as the divine truth and proudly put their stark, shocking ignorance on parade. Read over Mr. Johnson’s comment one more time and just try tell me that you would be a-ok with someone like him telling school boards how to structure science classes. Seriously. Go ahead. I’m all ears…

[ illustration by Jhonen Vasquez, alternative comic artist and creator of Invader Zim ]