Tuesday, March 25, 2014
In The Evolved Eye Of The Beholder
Tyson is deliberately and straightforwardly giving a whole lot of time to creationism. Why did we have to sit through the history of the eyeball? Creationists love to argue that the complexity of the eyeball disproves evolution. Note how he talked specifically about how the eyeball isn’t actually this perfect mechanism, but something that works well enough for what we need it for, but not as well as it does in fish — the whole idea that the eyeball is a perfect, too-complex thing is a creationist argument.
Another example: Why did Tyson spend so much time explaining the similarities and differences in how polar bears have evolved through natural selection vs. how dogs have changed in the time we’ve been breeding them for certain traits? Because creationists acknowledge that changes within species happen. They just like to pretend like one kind of organism couldn’t really have brought forth another kind of organism.
Tyson isn’t ignoring creationism. Creationists wish Tyson were ignoring creationism. Tyson is instead standing on creationism’s home turf and playing by their rules.
What creationists are upset about is that it’s not a discussion that bothers to treat their ideas like they have any scientific merit. After all, any good scientific question should eventually lead to an answer that generates more questions. Creationism short-circuits that process, instead arguing that there’s an end to questions — that, eventually, you can drill down enough to get to God — God did it or God willed it to be. No more questions needed.
That just can’t be a valid scientific approach. And, so far, week after week, that’s been the subtext to Cosmos
As I noted elsewhere, I'd actually caught those arguments (the eye complexity thing really leapt out at me), but they're still too subtle for the IDers to get. So they demand "fairness", which really means, "let us coopt and twist science without your contradicting us."
March 25, 2014 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In The Evolved Eye Of The Beholder:
They demand the coin have only one side; that the baloney be sliced so thin there is only one surface.
I'm glad to see Tyson rebutting their nonsense by presenting the complex reality of...reality.
As for "creationists" (I despise even the term), I discard them.
Posted by: Rmj | Mar 25, 2014 1:44:11 PM