Creationists should certainly think so. After all, Google is a handy tool for very quickly catching them doing what they do best — behaving dishonestly. And I’m not talking about the substance of their arguments, which is old news, but how they go about generating those arguments.
When blog commenters skeptical of evolution argue in a coherent, concise, point-by-point manner, you should immediately suspect that they have cut and pasted material from one of the more popular anti-evolution sites out there. Notice that “coherent” and “concise” do not point toward “worth a damn”; by definition, creationist arguments are never persuasive. But some of them, like Nathan Bradfield’s painfully plaintive, misspelling-riddled, and boorish posts, are, if nothing else, clearly the writer’s own work.
Which brings us to a comment to this post from someone who goes by “Reverse Vampyre”. It reads:
I’m continually surprised how often evolution proponents dogmatically state (perhaps through wishful thinking) that evolutionary theory is fact. It is not proven fact. Much of it is well-substantiated, but it’s hardly fact and shouldn’t be promoted as such. It’s more of a hypothesis.
Evolution, as most people believe it, contains many scientific flaws:
Macroevolution has NEVER been observed. Macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only horizontal (or even downward) changes without increasing complexity.
In lieu of first-person evidence, overwhelming physical evidence can be reliable. But here, too, evolution falls apart. I’ve yet to see anyone explain the lack of billions of years’ worth of transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. What we have are a handful of disputable examples.
The other biggie: biogenesis. Life doesn’t spontaneously spring from non-life. It’s never been observed.
And the biggie for me is the chemistry of life and the supposed “primordial soup.” No evolutionary theory has been able to explain why Earth’s atmosphere has so much oxygen. And if the early Earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, amino acids needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation. And if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun’s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life. The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously.
What we’re left with are scientific observations and theories, many of whom support the theory of creation. Those who refuse to believe in God/an intelligent designer are free to do so, but their theories require just as much faith to believe as creationism.
As this bit of garbage illustrates, other things that typically signal purloined tripe offered up as original tripe are the frequent use of the first person (“I’m continually surprised…”, “I’ve yet to see…”, “The biggie for me…”, “What we’re left with…”) and arguments tat not only spell out COMMON CANARD in neon-green, ten-foot-tall letters, but have little to do with the topic at hand. When “Reverse Vampyre” demonstrated a combination of coherence and startling scientific ignorance (e.g., “macroevolution has NEVER been observed”), I knew he probably had to have yanked his comment from someplace, and when he started in on the atmosphere I was positive. It was only a matter of figuring which one of the virtually countless zitty creationist asses wagging away in cyberspace he had chosen to reach into.
Thanks to Google, this took me about as long as it’s taking me to type this sentence. Et tu? (No peeking at my comments under that of “Reverse Vampyre” if you don’t want to cheat.)