What’s the Thought Process?

The gap between evolutionist and creationist is pretty wide. It shouldn’t be, but the tendency of creationists to get all their information about evolution from fellow creationists creates a gulf of understanding. Often times during a conversation the evolutionist must backtrack and explain what “microevolution” or “genetic drift” actually mean.

This gulf means that challenges from creationists often require some side discussion just to establish what’s going on in the creationist’s head. What, for example, is the thought process behind this church sign:

…. what? Is this just a joke about the “female species”? Evolution does require reproduction, so you gotta have both male and female.

Sometimes the creationist theories are so bizarre that you have to wonder if they’ve thought things through or if they just grabbed onto the first idea that sounded good. Consider this image, taken from Conservapedia on June 15th, on the Post-Diluvian Diaspora (AKA the migration of animals from Mt. Ararat after the Flood):

Please tell me there’s some way of interpreting this other than “the smaller animals got launched by an erupting volcano.” That’s a day when it really sucked to be an Australian marsupial.

  • Yoav

    Maybe the launch was caused by the shockwave from Xenu’s H-bombs.

  • The Other Weirdo

    The funny thing is that before I even got your very last paragraph, I got this image in my mind of all sorts of animals being launched into the air with their asses flaming and smoking from the hot lava. “Must not fart, must not fart!” Damn, there goes another species.

    • kessy_athena

      Somehow the image makes me think of an 80′s video game. Maybe that’s where they’re learning about science?

      • The Other Weirdo

        I thinking of ass-blasters. “What sort of supreme being would condone such irony?”

        • kessy_athena

          Oh, I think being excessively amused by irony is a prerequisite for being a deity. ;)

    • Yoav

      We have ken Ham treating the Flintstones as a documentary for years, then we had Christine O’Donnell mice with human brains comments, the only possible source for I can think of is this, so why not use Roadrunner cartoons to explain how all the animals got all over the world after the flood.

    • Cafeeine

      Like the Flintstones, Angry Birds is a documentary, dontchaknow…

  • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

    The sign is the ridiculous “a male dog evolved, had to find a female dog, but she hadn’t been evolved yet” creationist trope. They fail to recognize asexual and then hermaphroditic reproduction…

    • RickRayFSM

      I don’t think the majority of creationists would know what a hermaphrodite is. They still think homosexuality is a choice. Their god could never make a mistake such as creating a homosexual or a hermaphrodite. Evolution can be a bitch/bastard.

    • Michael

      It has nothing to do with asexual reproduction. (Some) Creationists think that the Theory of Evolution states that individual organisms evolve, and that animals of one species sometimes give birth to animals of another species. So a cat would one day give birth to a dog, but since that dog is infertile with its ancestral species, another cat would have to give birth to a bitch so the two could mate and produce the new dog species.

      They think this because people like Ray Comfort tell them, and they won’t ask actual scientists, because scientists are liars.

  • OverlappingMagistera

    The church sign shows a common misunderstanding of evolution: that full features appear all at once (i.e. a fish is suddenly born one day with legs) In this case, they are assuming that an asexual organism suddenly produced a female offspring with fully functional reproductive organs, and at the same time a male version with completely different, but compatible parts. Evolving into just a male or just a female wouldn’t work since you would need both at the same time in order to survive.

    Of course, this ignores all the examples we have of organisms that are able to reproduce both sexually and asexually, which could be a way that the two sexes gradually evolved. But learning this would involve actually looking for the answer to their questions rather than assuming that there is no answer. And we all know that looking for answers is a very bad creationist strategy.

    (Sorry if this is a re-post. Disqus might’ve eaten my first version of this comment.)

  • ORAXX

    I’m thinking the person who put that sign together knows little more about English than he/she does science. None the less, this person is probably something of a high achiever, within the creationist community.

    • The Other Weirdo

      Nonetheless, “none the less” is one word.

  • JohnMWhite

    The irony is that they have a small psuedo-point: all present-day humans are descended from one male and one female who lived thousands of years apart. The female is the eldest, too. In their grasping for nonsense, they’ve stumbled on what actually is more evidence that Adam and Eve are pure fiction.

    I find it fascinating how comfortable churches and religious businesses feel sticking signs in a public place that basically shouts accusatory challenges or threats at people. I saw a Salvation Army center recently where the sign said “There’s no air conditioning in hell”. Gee, thanks. I’m just driving to the grocery store and some jerk is threatening me with eternal torment in a lake of fire. They have that right, naturally, and the content generally doesn’t bother me, but I can’t help but wonder what would happen if the roles were reversed.

    Well I don’t have to wonder, we’ve all seen how religious communities utterly flip out at atheists billboards or buses.

  • revyloution

    I just love the phrase ‘Noachian Flood’, I particularly love that my spell checker always thinks the word is ‘Chicano’ .

  • Mark Joseph

    Thought process? *Thought* process?? You are joking, right?

  • vasaroti

    Ask the Catholic Church about this. Their doctrine is that apes evolved into our pre-human ancestors, and then at some point when God thought the ape had evolved enough, he inserted a soul. If God didn’t hand out souls to all the hominids in the group, then somebody had to commit beastiality. So, who got that first human soul, a male or female ape?

    • Michael

      Clearly God inserted souls into each individual in a certain population, or perhaps even each individual in the whole species. That’s why it took God so long before he could ensoul them–he had to make a lot of souls. (Though nowadays I guess he can make more than four souls per second.)

    • Yoav

      I saw this on ancient aliens at some point.

  • William Benjamin

    People with little faith do not give credence to the Bible to find it apparent contradictions, but it is precisely their little faith that prevents them to continue studying the Bible to finally realize that words can seemingly contradict himself (due to specific circumstances), but the reasons and the ends are always the same, and they are what really matter.

    This book helped me to understand this …
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Divided-Themes-ebook/dp/B00DBCQ8VO

    God bless you.

  • rfyorkinpdx

    Mark Joseph below gets it right. M. Benjamin to the contrary, those who “believe” this crap do not want to think. Thinking means examining the basic premises on which your belief rests.

    Believing the bible is history is no different from believing Peter Rabbit is history. The bible may have some excellent recommendations about interpersonal relations (or some of it may), but it is not history or science or true.

  • Mary

    The only citation given? Answers in Genesis. Enough said…


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X