How Darwin invented the Internet

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.


This entry was posted in Philosophy and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to How Darwin invented the Internet

  1. essiep says:

    There is some stretching the argument in this piece.
    If somebody rejects darwinism, they would have to reject the scientific method. Since biological evolution is supported by good quality science AND there is no alternative scientific tbeory to replace it, then they have no choice but to reject the scientific method. Its the same scientific method that underpins the other modern acheivements you have listed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Greetings Essiep,
      I’m sorry, but you are entirely wrong. In order to ACCEPT evolution, you have to reject the scientific method and replace it with the illogical faith in Darwinism. But, of course, as you have made the assertion, you carry the burden of proof and I am willing to be taught. Feel free to explain how “If somebody rejects darwinism, they would have to reject the scientific method.” because, as I stated in the article, I believe this is beyond merely silly.
      Thus far all you have done is reword the silliness I am debunking in the article itself.


      • essiep says:

        Actually, it is you that has made asertions in your post that remain unsupported. Explain why the science works that is exploited in digital communications but does not work in another area of science – Biological Evolution.
        You have also made an assertion that Darwinist Evolution is illogical, show where the logic fails.


      • Soooooo… you want me to prove that a cell phone and a living thing are different? Like, you need someone to explain to you how creating a digital array for the dissemination of encoded signals wirelessly is different than, say, changes in allele frequency caused by beneficial mutations that increase the genetic information in an organism? Do I also need to explain to you how geology differs from interpretive dance? Or perhaps the difference between fundamental bridge design and the filling of a pastry with cream filling as opposed to jelly filling?
        I think where the logic fails in in this question. With great hesitancy I suggest you try it again.
        However- Where Darwin fails is simple- Darwinism demands you can ADD by Subtracting. This is illogical, thus evolution fails.


  2. Amanda says:

    It definitely requires some sort of serious religious or spiritual fanaticism to reject even the possibility of evolution.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Greetings Amanda!
      Actually, rejecting evolution only requires a clear understanding of what Darwin proposed and an understanding of the mechanisms which are put forth as mechanisms of evolution. In short, if you can understand that you cannot add by subtracting, then you understand enough to reject Darwinism. It requires no religious beliefs at all- merely an understanding of Darwinism and basic logic.
      But you probably gained your understanding of evolution from the title of your 5th grade science textbook. Don’t feel too bad. People all the time be making absurd comments like yours about subjects they don’t understand in the comments section of LOTS of places on the internet. May I suggest that you spend more time asking questions instead of vomiting up a bumpersticker’s worth of anti-Christian hatespeach and bigotry next time? I think you will find that you learn more that way.
      Thanks for stopping by!


      • Amanda says:

        Are you suggesting that we in no way have evolved over millions of years ?


      • Yes, I am suggesting that we have not evolved, and also that there have not been millions of years. And while the reasons are too numerous to go into here, I will summarize and say, there are NO arguments or pieces of evidence to support the deep time/evolutionary dogmas. Human evolution is a lie with not a scrap of evidence behind it, as is all Darwinian evolution- Only a team of politicians, lawyers, and television personalities who know very little about the relevant sciences. Science does not support evolution, no matter how badly atheism wishes it would.
        To learn more, check out this resource I created where in people smarter than me break down all of the relevant issues in detail. I think you will find it eye opening and enlightening.


      • Amanda says:

        The fact that there are adults who deny that our species is millions of years old or that the earth is billions of year old is frankly terrifying and hard to believe.


      • I’m sorry that you are frightened by people who believe the truth. Or is it terrifying to you that people disagree with you? Once again, you haven’t said enough for me to fully understand you. Please try again.


    • Hey Amanda,
      I just briefly checked out your blog, and… you’re an animal rights person?

      You think that life is an accidental chemical byproduct of time plus matter plus chance, and that we differ from bacteria- our great, great grandparents, only in the complexity of our make up and not in what we essentially are. Bacteria, which you slaughter by the BILLIONS every time you take an antibiotic or wash your hands. You think we are merely one branch on a great tree of life which includes cabbages and wolves and fish and birds and fungi and worms- and yet you think that SOME branches on the tree of chemical accidents should NOT be slaughtered and eaten?

      WHY? In all seriousness, how can you possibly hold to evolution as fact and animal rights of any kind as rational? On evolution, you are ape, ape is rat, rat is fish, fish is worm, and worm is bacteria- and all is dirt with a special arrangement. How can you justify this pretense that SOME forms of life- those which are cute and have eyes and noses- deserve to live- when others- those with leaves or berries- can be mercilessly ripped from the ground and devoured?

      You say “Animals are not fundamentally different than humans in any way that makes it justified to kill them…” But what makes it unjust? What makes killing animals or people WRONG? What would make anything wrong?

      And if you are an atheist as well as an evolutionist, why should we not kill and eat YOU? Why ought YOU be given protection from the natural ways of the lions and sharks and wolves and others? Fish eat other fish. Why should I not eat you?

      Curious minds need to know.


      • Amanda says:

        What makes it wrong is the fact that it’s unnecessary.
        If we needed to consume animal products, it would not be wrong to do so.
        However, we don’t, therefore it is wrong. It’s that simple.
        We need to kill bacteria to keep ourselves safe, we do not need to kill or use animals for any reason.


      • So because we are CAPABLE of living without it, choosing to live with it makes it “wrong”? Yet, here you are on a computer, using the internet- something the human race CAN survive without. Are you wearing shoes? Because I happen to know that you could live without them. Some would argue that it’s better for your feet to go barefoot. So, on your view, checking your email and wearing shoes are as evil as killing dogs to make them into tacos? Or are you saying that killing dogs to eat them is as immoral as checking your email and writing a blog on the internet- which you choose to do with regularity.

        Am I understanding you properly this time? Feel free to explain your position to be in more detail if I have failed to grasp it.


      • Amanda says:

        Using the internet does not create victims the way the animal agriculture industry does, therefore it is ethical to do.


      • Greetings again Amanda,
        You said nothing about “Creating Victims” before. Your morality has gotten more complex. I am glad I have continued to ask questions.

        But even if we can agree that the animal agriculture industry does “Create victims” as you say, could I not say that you only condemn the creation of victims because your own morality has not evolved high enough? For all of human history, law and culture have supported the keeping and killing of animals for food and even merely for sport. If ethics are determined by law as you stated, then you should agree that these practices are GOOD.

        And even if you cannot agree now, then would you not agree that your morality will continue to evolve until you DO agree that killing animals for food and sport is good? After all, if morals evolve, then who would YOUR morals not evolve?

        Or might good and evil be something above us and outside us? Might there be EVILS which would be evil even if every law supported it? And might there be goods which would remain good even if every culture and fashion and government forbade it? Once again, I think you would see that there is, and that you already know this to be true. But then you must realize that, in a universe without God, there is no GOOD or EVIL just as in a universe with no light there is no yellow of blue. God is the standard, and he teaches us to be like him. This is the standard above and outside us. Traditionally it is called the moral argument for God’s existence. You may have an emotional reaction to it, but if you allow yourself to consider it, I think you will begin to see it is a sound proof for the God of the Bible.


  3. Pingback: Evolving to the Level of Dog Tacos | A Bit of Orange

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s