Mill Avenue Resistance: Friday, November 21st 2008

The Mill Avenue Resistance reports are written by Kyt Dotson as an extension of anthropological research on the population of Mill Avenue in Tempe, Arizona. Since the SFTS does their protests Friday and Saturday there are two reports a week. The supporting material not related to the Resistance reports can be found on the Under the Hills blog for Friday, November 21st 2008.

Tonight there were only two preachers for the SFTS to face off against: Jim and Valerie.

I’ve been talking to Valerie for years now, but I don’t know quite enough to get into any gross detail about her. And Jim I am not familiar with. Therefore this will mostly outline my observations of their interaction with the SFTS.

They brought with them a little trolley to truck some props out to Mill Ave including a small little amplified speaker that looks like an electric-torch-cum-tweeter. The microphone worked out pretty well for them, and the SFTS didn’t bring their amplification so they didn’t have any. It didn’t matter much because everyone could hear each other just fine.

The only crowd that gathered was the SFTS which did an excellent job of locking up the evangelists the entire time. Not a single passerby actually stopped to listen to them, and both the evangelists spent most of the previous night handing out pamphlets so they had none to hand out when the stage show came on. As a result only SFTS tracts were handed out.

Between the ordinary religious memes there was an unfortunate amount of scientific and basic knowledge ignorance being bratted from the soapbox. Which, I fear, is just Valerie repeating known-bad propaganda from Answers in Genesis. Including several that I believe they have modified to say: Do not use these arguments.

I hope anyone reading this understands that there is absolutely no need for a God vs. Science dichotomy. Evolution and religiosity are not diametrically opposed nor are they contradictory unless someone has tied up their supernatural in natural explanations, which is exceedingly foolish as our knowledge of the natural expands and tends to discount or dismiss the supernatural as flimflammery. If a thing is actually immeasurable, don’t start trying to give evidence of it in measurements or you’ll get laughed at.

It may be extremely important to stop people and tell them that framing discussions as Evolution vs. Christianity is not truthful. Science is totally agnostic towards the supernatural, and by agnostic I mean exactly that: nothing in science attempts to provide evidence for or against gods or spirits or anything else supernatural. If evidence were to arise for the supernatural: it would then be natural.

If anyone ever tries to say, “Ah you, you guys are believe in evolution not god.” It is important to follow that up with, “Those two things aren’t related.” Don’t ever get drawn into a discussion of Evolution vs. God/Religion. It is not a real discussion, at best it’s spinning wheels, at worst it’s simply psychic masturbation for both parties.

The coelacanth is an embarrassment to scientists because it was named a ‘living fossil;’ since this would tend to disprove evolution because here is something that should have been long gone. A fish, growing legs.” I believe she’s confused the coelacanth with another fish—this line of fish descended from some well known fossils has never been seen to be growing legs. Yes, they are “lobe finned fish” which are believed to be the descendants of fish that eventually grew legs, but the coelacanth is a descendant of the lobe finned ancestor that did not in fact go that direction—their lineage did stay pretty much totally fishlike. So, really, she’s got it backwards.[1]

Finally, the “living fossil” reference is no embarrassment to anyone. Coelacanth are in fact one of the oldest direct lineages from a known fossil that we’ve seen today—the only problem with her speech was that she suggested that the modern coelacanth is the same fish as the fossils, which it is not. In fact, modern coelacanth are a different species from the fossilized fish and show distinct and notable morphological differences from the fossils. We have today a distant, distant descendant and not the original “fossil.” This is actually predicted by evolution.

[In reference to the Big Bang,] Scientists have never seen explosions result in greater order. Nothing has ever exploded and produced more information.” More failed memes. Primarily because this one uses a weird description of the word “information.” And, really, nothing stops a disorderly explosion from resulting in order after it has occurred. Detonate something in a gravitational field, eventually many of the particles will form into a very orderly ring, or join up with the gravitational mass, creating a fairly orderly object.

Worse: information is what we make of it. Take a safe that I cannot penetrate. I blow it up and whatever flies out is more information about that safe than I had before. When I heard her say the information phrase I wanted to tell her that some Particle Physicists would like to talk to her about her misapprehension of exploding things.

Finally—for anyone who doesn’t know this yet—the Big Bang was not an explosion.[2] People who refer to it as an explosion have listened to too much Kent Hovind or are repeating propaganda so ignorant of the cosmological theory that they are hopelessly lost in their own misunderstanding. The term “explosion” has a rather specific definition that does not fit the event of the Big Bang. In fact, the Big Bang is currently considered a cosmological fact—not as a cosmological origin, but as a current state: the observable Universe is expanding.

Since the Big Bang cosmological origin says: “In the beginning Space-Time rapidly expanded; and it’s still expanding today.”

A lot of these memes are directly from Answers In Genesis. Most of them flimsy or failed, steeped in gross ignorance that even a layperson could educate themselves about. The primary problem is that the AiG information is couched in philosophical wording and interesting metaphors that are attractive to people who do not really want to learn much about these things. They are fed them as if they contradict their religiosity, they want to be skeptical about them, but they end up instead swallowing poison and thinking they’ve learned something.

The worst part about it is that none of these theories and facts that they call out with special attention have anything to do with their religiosity. Science as whole is not concerned about the veracity of that which cannot be detected, that which does not manifest, or that which cannot have evidence.

A good deal of these failed memes include usages like:

Increase/decrease in information.” Gross misapprehension of what the word “information” means in scientific or even conversant contexts.

The origin of life and the origin of species.” A terrible misunderstanding of the fact of evolution and Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, both of which are agnostic as to the origin of life itself. Abiogensis is a totally different field of study than Evolutionary Biology. All evolution requires is living things, since they’re already here it’s good to go.

The origin of everything vs. the origin of species.” The most bizarre misunderstanding I have ever encountered: trying to tie cosmological facts and theories to the fact and theory of Evolution. The irregularity is so staggering that it’s hard to even respond to these types of conflations.

Really, the most unhealthy part of this propaganda is that a lot of the people who want to espouse nonexistent or totally debunked problems with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and the fact of evolution are specially pleading that evolution itself is wrong—while reaping the benefits of Evolutionary Biology every time that they take an antibiotic, or get a flu-short, or get their blood tested for a particular virus or protozoan.

Question for people

I also receive some tracts and things from the preachers when I go out to Mill. Normally I just collect these into yearly paleo-samples of the dialogues and manuscripts of their behavior—would anyone be interested if I dissected or gave observations on some of the tracts?


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

3 thoughts on “Mill Avenue Resistance: Friday, November 21st 2008

  1. That lady had no clue what she had coming when she gave me the “Good Person Test”. She didn’t know anything about the Torah.

  2. A criticism that I have for Valerie about some of the things that she said actually stems from her attempting to lecture people with, “If you want to talk to me about interpreting the Bible get a it in [list languages.]” Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT.

    We will have to ignore that what Bibles we can get nowadays isn’t even going to be the original Greek or Hebrew that they want, so why even ask for that? I wonder if she can read the Biblical Greek or Hebrew.

    Directly to the point, though, is to dismiss other people’s criticism when they use a Bible but then use something like the Good Person Test which uses wrong translations of the Ten Commandments from the OT (that pesky Hebrew) and modifies them with passages from the NT (that pesky Greek.) Yet she doesn’t present them in the Hebrew or Greek! The Good Person Test in all its bad rhetoric is being given a free pass in the face of requesting that criticism follow strict guidelines.

    This would make more sense if the Good Person Test Commandments weren’t actually outright wrong; if they were simply misinterpreted (what this about it only being a specific behavior?) or out of context (how is it that these commands are only for this specific tribe?) but actually written differently from contemporary translations in English.

    People who give special pleading to memes generated by Ray Comfort and shut down criticism with this sort of reply really need to be called on it.

  3. I’ve actually wanted to dissect some of their tracts myself, so yes I do think that would be good content. If you find some that you think are worth examining, please do!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>