Evolution vs. Creationism Club

Get help making your point

As an avowed believer in the religion of evolution, I find it’s doubters very frustrating sometimes. They won’t listen to reason, they have no facts to back up their arguments and they only have one argument in the first place. Faith. What kind of argument is that in a scientific debate? Well, they seem to think it’s a very convincing one, if all the sign making that goes on in creationist lobby groups is anything to go by!

You can’t read a news report about the creationist lobby in the US without there being a motley crew of red necks with badly spelled signs waving about in the background. The problem with scientific arguments is that they don’t fit neatly onto a placard. We have to take a little more time to explain, in the tiniest detail, why evolution is the truth. And we can do that because evolution is full of the kind of tiny details that make it so convincing, rather than the one big, abstract idea of “faith”.

If you ever feel yourself at a loss in an argument with a creationist, there are those who have already walked that path and have written inspiring and beautiful books, that are not only informative and incredible, but can also provide the budding evolutionist with lots of ammunition with which to blow creationism out of the water! Richard Dawkins is more well known as a famous atheist, but his background is really in zoology, and many of his early books are chock full of examples as to how evolution has worked on things like our eyes, our reproduction, our families and even our personalities. He’s provided me with many a quote with which to flummox a creationist. Just don’t mention his name; they tend to get a bit angry when they hear the word “Dawkins”!

Similar Posts:
Smart sheep : I sometimes wonder where these university boffins…
Chinese stealth : China is come out in the open with its very…
The real drug threat : We thought the marijuana and weed are…
Farmland Productivity Increased WIth Nitrogen Fixing Legumes : Nitrogen…

The GM nation

India is a country of a billion, maybe more now. Some activists are now pushing to the edge to of turning the country into a organic farm house, but the country has resisted. I know its sound like I’m supporting against organic but here are facts people forget to bare in mind.
The fact is that we have a billion people or more, the fact is that GM food is cheaper and faster to grow, the fact is that 60% of the Indian population is under poverty – the fact is – the country lives on GM food. For those who do not know what GM food is, it is Genetically Modified food where the vitamins lacking in one food source is compensated for by transferring genes from other food source that has the need vitamins.
This particular form of food can grow quicker compared to organically produced food and since it can be produced in abundance, it is in high supply in India at a lower cost. The problem with organic is that fact that it takes time, there is a very big organic market in India but what cost 5 pounds for a sack of rice would translate to 20 pounds a sack of rice in organic terms. So that would mean that if we had to make everything supplied in India organic – number one would deprive the most important food source of the Indians to the poor and number two push more people down into the poverty line. Since India doesn’t grow a very large amount of organic food, it depends on imported goods in this sector.
In total we now look at import duties plus the as-it-is expensive organic food plus the cost for keeping this food from rotting (since its delicate in nature) and also including the price for fancy retail shop fitting. Seriously, have they considered this?

Similar Posts:
Simple science of sleeplessness : Quite recently, Ranjan Das,…
Chinese stealth : China is come out in the open with its very…
Biodegradable and Recyclable Synthetic Resin Developed : Most…
Benefits of Yoghurt : Most people in today’s world are…

The creationist conundrum

Trying to understand the origins of the universe is rather like lock picking in that the pursuit of the truth requires a delicate approach. As with picking a lock, brute force won’t really work – there’s a subtlety of method. Creationism, at face value, seems like utter bonk. There’s no immediate evidence for it, there’s no reason to believe in it and it seems like the people who peddle the idea that God made the world in under a week are probably deluded. It is a very pervasive story, though, and seems to be respected far more than it would seem worth. It seems that blind faith in religion is something that our children are expected to indulge in. While we encourage pupils to treat everything with a critical, analytical eye – especially when working from Wikipedia – kids are supposed to just nod and smile when grown-ups basically tell them that a person they cannot see created the Earth and everybody on it just before the Egyptian empire reached dominance. Apparently this happened in six days, before this omniscient, omnipotent being needed to snooze. Now, obviously this makes no sense whatsoever, but the key to accepting the challenges faced by the faithful is to assume that even if it isn’t true, it isn’t harmful to believe in it anyway. It doesn’t matter if somebody thinks something daft – provided they’re otherwise nice and accepting of more scientific views, they’re perfectly entitled to their beliefs. The blatant inaccuracies and contradictions in the Old Testament are probably not to be taken absolutely literally.

Similar Posts:
The science of beer advertising : Foster’s beer is…
The Physics of Playing the Piano : So I have paid for my…
Maths can be fun. No really! : As a mathsoholic ( if it…
The science of beer adverts : The best of Foster’s lager…