Like Bill Nye, he calls himself the “science guy” and he had this to say on a recent online article.
“Funny how the religious fanatics (by which SG means people who reject evolution) seem to forget that without science they would be writing this all on paper and sending via the pony express. Three phase power, transistors, etc…all results of GREAT science.”
I see comments like this one ALL of the time. Some atheist with a cute pseudonym tries to make fun of creationists by reminding them that SCIENCE/evolution is responsible for all of the video cameras, laptop computers, blogs, and youtube accounts that the creationists are using to spread their silly religious ideas.
In a debate against three evolutionists high school teachers, Kent Hovind was once treated to a reading of a partial list of the things science is responsible for, and which evolutionists use while doing “science.” It included microscopes, computers, calculators, electricity…
WHEW! I was all, “Slow down professor! Some of us don’t know what all of those BIG words mean!” Hovind was not so intimidated.
In 1988 an Australian college professor named Ian Pilmer, once put this idea into practice whilst debating creationist Dwane Gish. In what has to be the greatest display of reducing ones self to absurdity, Pilmer decided, as many have done since, that to reject evolution is to reject all of science. Thus, he concluded, to reject Darwin is to reject even the “theory of electricity.” To give Dr. Gish the chance to demonstrate his faith, Pilmer plugged in an extension chord which was cut off in the middle and offered the bare, LIVE wires to Dr. Gish suggesting that, if his faith is correct, if “Science” is nothing real, he had nothing to fear.
My high school debate coach clearly failed me, for I do not recall him suggesting to us that we give our opponent a chance to kill himself mid-debate.
Perhaps that is an Australian tactic.
This video is one of the greatest train wrecks that youtube has saved for us to experience. But Pilmer’s point is, sadly, still alive and well. The idea is, creationists reject Darwinian evolution, and thus they reject “Science.” But without science, we would not have electric lights, cars, planes, computers, modern medicine, American Idol, spray cheese, crystal meth and the nuclear bomb. Thus, they argue, Creationists, in rejecting evolution, reject the very means by which all of these amazing technological breakthroughs came into being. If Creationists had their way, we’d still be writing on PAPER, and probably living in caves, eating dirt and speaking in grunts, unable to conjugate even the simplest verb.
And there would be no spray cheese.
Let’s consider this argument for a moment. If rejecting evolution means rejecting ALL of “Science,” then it follows that ALL of science somehow hinges on Evolution. But then, if that is true, then to disprove Evolution would mean to disprove all of science. If Evolution is really the pivotal, foundational piece of the scientific puzzle, then if we could show it was wrong, we would also have shown that there is no gravity, or laws of motion, or atomic elements, or electricity, or laptop computers or spray cheeses.
Make note that it is the anti-creationists who are making this claim, NOT the creationists. No creationist in the world is saying, “Darwin is wrong, therefore I can fly by flapping my arms and the sun goes around the earth, which is flat and sits on the back of a turtle.” It is the atheists who (I suspect without realizing it) are saying “Darwin invented the internet! Without evolution, we would not have science and technology and industry and spray cheese! Those creationists are rejecting EVERYTHING we know!”
I have asked for a handful of such web commentators to defend their comments by explaining how Darwin is responsible for all of science and technology. I’ve also asked them to explain how the rejection of Darwin is also a rejection of the laws of chemistry, physics, biology, etc. None have yet answered, and I suspect they never will. I will keep asking as long as people keep making this ridiculous claim. Please do likewise, and if you get an answer, let me know. First anti-creationist who can defend this position will get a free can of spray cheese from me via fax, supposing such fantastical “scientific” things really exist.