Christopher Hitchens wrote an article not too long ago wherein he claimed to have proved evolution and disproved creation in a single blow. I don't find his idea as exciting as he does, and want to take a look at it.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Whereas the likelihood that the post-ocular blindness of underground salamanders is another aspect of evolution by natural selection seems, when you think about it at all, so overwhelmingly probable as to constitute a near certainty.' - Hitchens [1.]
- His basis idea is that since natural selection caused the cave salamander to lose its eye, this means natural selection is able to create an eye. This is simply a mistake in logic. e.g. If a con artist manages to steal the savings of the heir to a family fortune, does that mean the heir necessarily has the ability to build a fortune? Does the fact he can lose a fortune mean he can create one?)
- Creationists don't deny that natural selection worked to eliminate the eyesight of the cave salamander. (Or the eyesight of blind cave fish.) It's easy to ruin something. (Let's look at an analogy; any vandal can destroy a great painting, but does this mean he can create one?)
"Proving that someone can fall down the mountain (Improbable or otherwise) is hardly proof that he could have climbed up there in the first place. That’s the general problem with many alleged proofs of evolution: it’s not that the changes are too small, but that they are going in the wrong direction." - J. Sarfati [4.]
2. "The creationists (to give them their proper name and to deny them their annoying annexation of the word intelligent) invariably speak of the eye in hushed tones.'' - Christoper Hitchens
- One would like to ask him, ''and don't you?'' Anyone who doesn't speak of the eye in hushed tones is a strange character indeed. Here I think we see a main problem with materialists. Not only do they not want to praise god for his creation, they feel the need to mock people who do. I'm baffled by people who mock the wonders of our world.
- What we see here is how Materialism works to destroy wonder in people. i.e. if things just happen by mindless accident why get excited about them? i.e. if the wonders of the world can happen by random chance how great can they be? We all know that this is not the way the world works. Does great software code come about by dripping ones and zeros onto a page a la Jackson Pollack? Can a monkey write great code by throwing feces at the wall? We all know (unless deluded by 'education') that the more complex a thing is the more intelligence it took to create it.
3. 'It’s only once we shake our own innate belief in linear progression and consider the many recessions we have undergone and will undergo that we can grasp the gross stupidity of those who repose their faith in divine providence and godly design.'' - Hitchens
- Well; it' nice to get a lecture in civility from a barbarian I guess. Too bad he didn't feel a need to get his facts straight, or feel the need to write to a creationist about his great breakthrough. (I wonder if he ran naked through the streets crying eureka :=) The man is so full of himself that he can't imagine his 'insight' has been long ago answered. Maybe he looked up salamander in the index of his bible; ''let's see... no, nothing on salamanders; therefore Cs have nothing to say on the subject."
- Hitchens is as blind as his salamander. Since he likes turning questions around; we'll ask, ''why is it he speaks in such hushed tones about eyeless salamanders?" Apparently it's only things that cast a bad light on Christianity that produces a 'hush' in the hearts of atheists like Hitchens. (A kind of spirituality in reverse I guess you could call it.)
- Hitchens speaks of the 'dialectical usefulness' of asking questions in reverse. (Is this evidence of the vestigial organ of Marxism I wonder :=)
- To the old atheist question 'why do some people believe in god?' maybe he ought to ask, 'why is it some people don't want to believe in god?"
- Hitchens is such a talented person that he not only asks questions in reverse he gets everything in reverse. He looks at evidence for creation and manages (with the skill of a contortionist) to see evidence for Darwinism.
- One reason Es like Hitchens don't see much is that they don't want to. They continually bring up old arguments (disposed of long ago by creationist writers) because they can't be bothered to keep up to date with creationist writing. (They seem to be blind to C. books when they browse book stores, and blind to C. websites when they surf the net. They see about as much as blind salamanders or blind cave fish.)
- You surely have to be blind not to be able to recognize the wonder of the human eye. (If that's not something to speak about in hushed tones what is? If that's not a reason to praise god what is?)
Notes;
1. Losing Sight of Progress; How blind salamanders make nonsense of creationists' claims - b; July 21, 2008 Slate
2. Christopher Hitchens; blind to salamander reality - Jonathan Sarfati
3. 'Dawkins must be willingly ignorant of what creationists teach, or is deceitfully knocking down a straw man. After all, why should his ethics be trusted under his own belief system when Dawkins has agreed that ultimately evolution ‘leads to a moral vacuum … in which [people’s] best impulses have no basis in nature’, and scoffed at the idea of righteous indignation and retribution against child murderers and other vile criminals?' - Sarfati
- Dawkins is the most dishonest writer I know of. (Not to mention the strangest.) In a piece he wrote recently, he said we should treat people no differently than machines; that since we don't punish a machine that malfunctions, neither should we a human being. Does this mean I can put him on the shelf or throw him out with the trash :=)
4. 'This is the crux of Hitchens’ argument. Yet this is his own blind spot. Proving that someone can fall down the mountain (Improbable or otherwise) is hardly proof that he could have climbed up there in the first place. That’s the general problem with many alleged proofs of evolution: it’s not that the changes are too small, but that they are going in the wrong direction.' - Sarfati
- the response by Sarfati to Hitchens is excellent. (see note 2.)
5. So why do I title this short piece the 'Eyeless evolutionist'? I do so because if we had to rely on materialism (and thank god we don't) we wouldn't have any eyes. If there were any living organisms at all (and there wouldn't be) they would be blind.
6. The blind salamander would be a good mascot for the Darwinists.
7. What does it say about Es that they get excited about eyeless creatures, but dump all over the human eye for being badly designed?
8. Hitchens mocks people who get excited about the human eye, but gets excited himself about a blind (eyeless) salamander. What kind of darkness has descended on such a person? What kind of a philosophical, epistemological cave is he trapped in?
10. 'Whereas the likelihood that the post-ocular blindness of underground salamanders is another aspect of evolution by natural selection seems, when you think about it at all, so overwhelmingly probable as to constitute a near certainty. - Hitchens
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
