I’m not sure, but there’s something a bit different lately in that it seems like evolution (more appropriately reality-based) supporters seem to be taking on the flat-earthers a bit more forcefully as of late. Here’s two more great examples of critics unabashedly calling creationists out on their nonsense.
First off, apparently Forbes magazine ran an article by a neurosurgeon that essentially said evolution was bunk. Not surprising,considering how Forbes tends to be the pinnacle of another type of irrational fundamentalism, that of the “free market”. To their credit, they ran a forceful rebuttal from Jerry A. Coyne, a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, called Why Evolution is True:
How does Egnor account for the natural world? He does not, in fact, offer a scientific theory. Rather, he subscribes to the creationist view that complex things, which are difficult to explain, are the domain of God. If we don’t understand something, there’s no point trying to understand it–we should just throw up our hands and say, “God did it.”
Imagine what would have happened if, over the history of science, we imputed to God’s hand everything we didn’t understand. We would never have cured the plague, which–like most diseases and disasters–was once thought to reflect God’s anger rather than bacteria-carrying fleas. “Barrenness” in women was thought to reflect divine displeasure; it is now treated effectively by scientific means, not by propitiating the gods.
If you read the article, one thing you’ll notice is creationists often like to flagrantly ignore evidence, stating there are “no examples of” things like transitional fossils or “no coherent, evidence-based explanation for the evolution of even a single molecular pathway from primordial components and such” (like the process of blood clotting), when a first-year biology student can clearly point out several examples. The only reason I can see for this is they probably figure their audience is primarily faith-based to begin with and not about to engage in pointless endeavors such as “fact checking”. Or they just need to ignore it, as their whole Sky Fairy deck of cards comes crashing down, if they don’t.
Example number two (h/t to Jack at GMD and PZ at Pharyngula) comes from a bioloist at UVM, a Dr. Nicholsa Gotelli. Dr. Gotelli was appreoached by the ID think tank Discovery Institute with an offer to have a “creation vs. evolution” debate at UVM. From the good doctor’s response, over at Pharyngula:
Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.
Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.
Indeed, it would, but it ain’t ever gonna happen. An excellent response, saying exactly what should be said: creationism is nonsense, and is not entitled to “debate” evolution, as one is supported by mountains of evidence and one is not. And of course, they will continue to whine and cry, and say we won’t debate them because we’re “afraid” they might be right. Yeah…. afraid… you betcha.
