Fuzzy Logic

“Logic dictates that if evolutionism is true and the eye was built incrementally over time from nothing to its present state of functional wholeness, then it must have at some point in the past been only half of an eye.”

I goddamn LOVE this site.

Korzak asked me to blog about it, because he can’t bring himself to finish the whole article. He says that little gems like “[N]owhere in the Bible does it say that Adam had half-eyes – a notable fact that would not have been left out – so that means he didn’t” makes him want to blow his head clean off, like a five year old swatting a ball of a tee.

Here’s the summary: evolution can’t be true because, if it were, there would have been a time when we only had half of an eye. Dr. Richard Haley uses logic to back his claim up: Logic dictates that if evolutionism is true and the eye was built incrementally over time from nothing to its present state of functional wholeness, then it must have at some point in the past been only half of an eye. Delicious! It’s a brand of logic I’m not even aware of; Malleable Logic, ready to twist to fit your own conception of the truth. Let’s try it out, shall we?

1) Logic dictates that if you have a sandwich and I don’t, it’s unfair. We know that things that are unfair are unwholesome in the eyes of the Lord – ergo, I am doing His work when I smash your head in with a ball-peen hammer and take what is rightfully mine.

2) Logic dictates that if you have any male friends, you like guys. Ergo, you’re gay.

3) Logic dictates that “[o]ur economy has grown 164 percent in three decades. That’s pretty good growth. And yet, according to a report that the EPA is releasing today, air pollution from six major pollutants is down by 48 percent during that period of time.” Ergo, we should complete gut the Clean Air Act, which proves that you can be profitable and still reduce pollution [Bush, New Yorker 9.29.03] (to quote Kolbert, “Citing the success of the Clean Air Act in order to justify gutting it makes, on the face of it, no sense whatsoever; if there’s any lesson here, it’s that tough pollution standards work, and that they are perfectly consistent with a robust economy. But the weakness of the President’s arguments only makes the broader message …that much plainer: nothing is going to stand in the way of the Administration’s environmental program, least of all logic.”)

See? You can learn many wonderful things from the “science of creation” – it “gives us a more reasonable and evidenced origin for the complex eye: it was created by God whole and fully functional.” It allows us to completely fuck the environment. It gets me what I want. What’s the big problem?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.