“Big Dog” on evolution

Yesterday, “Big Dog” complained that my characterization of his blogging as fact-starved was itself unsubstantiated. He, in the usual tradition, found it necessary to mention me in a post a few hours ago but has apparently blocked my comments from appearing on his site.
This need not be an extended pissing contest. To gain a sense of what this guy is about, here’s a rundown of the things he’s said over the years about evolution, easily uncovered in five or ten minutes of searching his verbal crap-heap.
“[P]eople who believe in evolution are an interesting lot. These folks believe in a theory that one species can evolve into another (though we have never actually seen this) and they believe that humans evolved from lower primates. Darwin’s theory also tells us that only the fittest survive which would include a species and individuals within a species. This seems to be where those who espouse evolution have a problem because every time a species becomes endangered they want it put on a list and they want all kinds of measures taken to protect said species. If the fittest survive and a species is not surviving then that species must not be the fittest. Seems that we would be interfering with the whole natural selection thing by getting involved … I have no doubt we can save a species if we try. The thing is, why should we. The people who believe in evolution should be forced to accept the whole thing or else they should stop pushing the evolution agenda and take it out of our schools … Besides, if Darwin was right, nature can just evolve some new primates.” (October 25, 2007)
The number of basic errors in comprehension in just this passage is alarming, but sets the tone for everything that follows.
“Though I do not believe in evolution, at least not in the Darwinian sense, I do believe that the fittest of a species survive in order for that species to continue to survive. Some creatures, unable to adapt, become extinct.” (November 23. 2007)
So how do these adaptations occur and what is the substrate for them if not genetic variation? God’s will across the board?
“I am not going to rehash the evolution idea and why it makes no sense or why people hold it as gospel truth despite the fact it has never been proven and that it is a theory. The theory of evolution is much like the theory of Global Warming in the minds of Democrats. They believe it so it must be true and they will repeat it as true so often that it will become ingrained in people. Global warming and evolution are taught in schools as if they are proven science and this is done to brainwash a generation of school kids so they grow up to be little tree-hugging liberals. The libs have to find a way to replenish their ranks because they are aborting their children thus removing future generations of liberals … [Mike] Huckabee’s position on evolution does not bother me and it would not even if I believed in evolution.” (December 16, 2007)
I admit I kind of gave up even before reaching the part about liberals “aborting their children.”
“Palin is pro life, a member of the NRA and thinks creationism should be taught next to evolution. I find no reason to be against someone who believes in the sanctity of life and who supports the Second Amendment. I also find it refreshing that someone would offer differing opinions on how we got here. Palin wants children to be given differing points of view whereas Reimer only wants them indoctrinated with an unproven, flawed theory.” (September 3, 2008)
Of course, “Big Dog” wrote this just before observing, with something less than prescience, “These people will make the mistake of underestimating Sarah Barracuda and will regret it. She is bright and fierce and will take them apart.”
“If Dr. Joan is right about evolution (no science to support it but…) then the fittest need to survive.” (February 12, 2009)
Note that in a quote posted above, “Big Dog” argued that animals bound to go extinct without humans intervening should in fact be left to die, but here is claiming that certain animals (wingnut humans, in this case) should be armed to protect their “fitness advantage,” just in case. Sheer brilliance.
As expected, there is lots of hand-waving here, but no attempt–not even a bad one–to explain why evolution is flawed, unsubstantiated, or whatever. Considering that “Big Dog” seems like the kind of science junkie who loses himself in Talk Origins and books by Lewontin and Dennett when he’s not masturbating to Rambo movies or attending gun shows, I’m as surprised as I am disappointed.
So rather that await further inevitable lies and bullshit from “Big Dog” and comment on them, I will wait for him to point if he chooses toward evidence that evolution is “an unproven, flawed theory” (as opposed to creation, which of course is supported by reams of well-corroborated evidence, or so I assume based on “Big Dog’s” bold statements). I doubt he will try, so I rather and pester him further as I’ve done for little good reason with Gribbit and others, I’ll write him off as a humorless joke.
Actually, the more material I dug up here, the more I realized that “Big Dog” is more plain stupid than dishonest, although he possesses both traits in such florid abundance that distinguishing which is the more crippling to his ability to generate meaningful verbiage is like deciding whether Peter Griffin is a worse father than Homer Simpson. The junk I harvested on evolution alone is bad enough, but it’s hard to not pause and gawk at the wrecked trains of logic and analysis that stuff piled atop. When any of these assholes starts preaching with the undiluted confidence of the howling moron about what Obama will do to ruin the country, I just point to their own equally confident bleatings about how Palin would be just the thing to guarantee a McCain victory in November. This shit will never stop, but it might get funnier.

Advertisements
  1. #1 by penn on February 13, 2009 - 8:34 am

    Why do creationists think that accepting evolution logically leads to letting those we consider unfit to die? We can support increased human action to protect biodiversity and the truth of evolution, especially because it’s human actions that are threatening these species. It’s like saying if we accept gravity we have to be against airplanes and jumping. It doesn’t make any sense. Gravity and natural selection do not need our help.

  2. #2 by Jim Fiore on February 13, 2009 - 9:40 am

    Kev, you can’t argue with the intellectual equivalent of a doorknob. Check out a comment he left for you:
    Science to support evolution, upon reflection, certainly just like there is science to support man made global warming. Both are theories so neither has been proved.
    There is no scientific consensus and obviously it is not settled or it would not be a theory.
    The man has the brains of a slice of toast. He doesn’t even understand the basic definition of a scientific theory, and apparently either doesn’t understand the concept of scientific consensus or simply ignores it when he doesn’t agree with it (as if his personal assent was required in order for there to be consensus).
    I suggest the following name for this particular breed of “big dog”:
    Canis Familiaris Dumbfuckus

  3. #3 by Larry Ayers on February 13, 2009 - 1:11 pm

    Why bother to pay attention to and get into it with such fools, Kevin? The blogosphere is just full of such ignorant and misguided people; there are blog enclaves out there which just parrot Limbaugh and other irrational media figures. It just encourages these people when you and other Sciencebloggers pay attention to them, as if they actually had something substantive to say!
    I have to admit that there is a certain amount of entertainment value, though, in their splenitive and frothy-mouthed posts…

  4. #4 by Larry Ayers on February 13, 2009 - 1:11 pm

    Why bother to pay attention to and get into it with such fools, Kevin? The blogosphere is just full of such ignorant and misguided people; there are blog enclaves out there which just parrot Limbaugh and other irrational media figures. It just encourages these people when you and other Sciencebloggers pay attention to them, as if they actually had something substantive to say!
    I have to admit that there is a certain amount of entertainment value, though, in their splenitive and frothy-mouthed posts…

  5. #5 by cany on February 13, 2009 - 1:11 pm

    There is no reasoning with fact-lite people, best to just ignore them.
    They don’t get that some of us who are Christian DO support and believe in evolution because we are not Biblical literalists.
    Tsk tsk on him.

  6. #6 by caerbannog on February 13, 2009 - 3:11 pm

    Best to take Mark Twain’s advice here:
    “Never argue with an idiot — he’ll drag you down to his level and beat you with his experience.”

  7. #7 by smilodon1 on February 13, 2009 - 7:10 pm

    I have a problem with “believe in evolution.” Asking if one believes in evolution is like asking if one believes in the Rocky Mountains. It’s a meaningless question. Evolution is just there!

  8. #8 by Christian on February 14, 2009 - 6:09 am

    If you believe in gravitation, you shouldnt use a parachute?

%d bloggers like this: