Dear Mr. Feurerstein... allow me to explain why you're a twatwaffle

Woo, it's been quite a long while since I've had the pleasures of sitting down and getting to write something. Thankfully, just as I was remembering how to English, a mister Joshua Feurerstein went viral with his video "Dear Mr. Atheist ... allow me to destroy evolution in 3 minutes!"

The only problem is that, like most unscientific plebs, he doesn't understand a lick of what he's talking about.

Now, there are already tons of videos and blog posts and what have you out and about that smack down this guy's argument like Randy Savage snaps into a Slim Jim. But everyone else isn't Kyle, and Kyle just likes to throw his opinions around as if they were going out of style (they were never in style, mind you).

So, without further adieu: Dear Mr Feurerstein...

You are, without a doubt, part of what the problem is in this world. And no, I don't mean "religion is the root of all evil" problem. I mean the "willing propagation of misinformation, inability to perform proper research, and willful ignorance" problem. While I've already gone to lengths to call you a twatwaffle, I feel that I could come up with much better insults while effectively countering your entire argument.

And that's just to sum up the video; go on and check out the link to it above. You'll find people rallying around him, caps-locking their way into digital Heaven, and using their own holy book as proof for their holy book. While I'm not going to try to denounce any religion (that'll be when I've ascended into my own godhood), it just amazes me that the proof for their claim is their claim. And that's not even all that's in the video! This guy goes on to denounce evolution, talk about the etymology of the word "universe" and whatever. Let's take it step by step, shall we?

Case 1: Mistaking that anyone believes evolution is what created the universe

The video opens up with der Feuerstein claiming an atheist called him a moron for believing in God and that God made everything whereas the atheist "believed in something he called the science of evolution." That italics is there because der Feuerstein spread some extra sass butter all over that linguistic bread. I'm not too sure if Atheist v Feuerstein actually happen, but let's assume that it did.

Based just on this introduction, it's clear that Mr. Feurerstein thinks that evolution, as used by the atheist, is something used to describe how the secular world believes everything came into existence. It's not. While the secular idea of the Big Bang (more properly referred to as "inflation theory") -- which has recently come into a pretty neat piece of evidence that essentially proves it happened -- is the theory for the universe's existence, evolution isn't.

This might just me being nit picky, but the problems don't stop there.

Case 2: "Evolution is not a science, never has, and never will be[...]"

Holy gravy balls, readers. I can't even begin to understand how the hell he came up with this idea. 

Even the people who perform magic don't get it.

He continues: "It cannot fit within the parameters, the parenthesis of science for one simple reason: it was never observed."

Alright, I suppose he's technically correct. Evolution has never been directly observed. Except for the pat where it kinda has. Want an even closer-to-home example of evolution? Influenza. Every single year, a new flu vaccine has to be created and distributed because the virus is constantly evolving.

Add to that the following evidence (source)

• The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth.  This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
• The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. 
• Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on.  This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
•  Common traits in embryos.  Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata.  One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine.  For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.  But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. 
• Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.  Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.  It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.  This is because of the random nature of mutations.

"But Kyle," you begin to object, "I've never actually seen these things develop before my eyes. How can I know they're true?" Glad you asked. Here's this super cool video (catchy music free of charge) showing the transitional species throughout the ages: 

Got it? Good. Back to Mr. Feurerstein. He describes evolution as "one man's theory". Most scientist accept it as true.

Der Feuerstein says it takes faith to believe in evolution. I suppose it does, but tons of evidence cushion my faith so well, it's like I'm sleeping on a bed of scientific facts. Back to my man:

"You want me to believe that in some accidental cosmic bang, that out of that was created one cell, and that from one cell, all life springs?" No, because life didn't form instantaneously. In fact, the Earth didn't form until 9.1 billion years or so until after the Big Bang. Life didn't start until much later. Of course, it's hard to get straight numbers on that, since almost nobody is in agreement on just when proto-life began to form. 

"Somewhere[...] we mysteriously and magically developed different wills and we all developed different characteristics, all because we willed it in our h-"

Hold the fucking phone.

Karate action grip, GO!

How can a creationist denounce anything as "mysterious" and "magical"?! They literally believe in a God that created everything as is in seven days from nothing. That sounds pretty mysterious and magical to me. Oh, and evolution isn't magical; it's a process that naturally selects traits that'd be beneficial to an organism in a specific environment. Survival of the fittest, as they say. And no, I'm not going to explain how each and every organism is best suited to their environment. That'd take an enormous amount of time that I just don't have.

Nor was evolution as conscious process. It's called "natural selection" not "artificial selection". The difference between the two is that the former is something based on the relationships between the organism and the environment, while the latter is something a sapient organism performs on another organism. So while artificial selection is a "willed" process (and something that couldn't have come about until humans came into existence; aliens notwithstanding), natural selection is just something that happens as organisms attempt to survive. Simple as that.

Case 3: Still asserting that evolution isn't a science

Wrong. Again.

Case 4: The Second Law of Thermodynamics

"Chaos can never produce order," as the Famous Feurerstein doth spake. What I'm assuming he means is that "energy is randomly lost in a system due to entropy". While he never actually makes any point on the Second Law, I'm still going to talk about how he's wrong for using it and idiotic if he thinks it applies.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often used by creationists in order to assert that evolution requires energy, and tons of energy would be lost if organisms started as single cells and evolved into complex entities like ourselves. To which I respond as such 

Thank God that giant nuclear reactor in space exists, what with it's whole "pumping energy into our planet" and whatnot.

He also points out how gravity makes object orbit each other. I'm not sure how this disproves evolution though.

Case 6: Because it's ordered, it must come from something to do the ordering

Der Feurerstein uses an example of a tornado going through a junk yard and making a shiny, new Lamborghini on the other side. While this makes no sense in its own right, there are just two problems with this assertion

1. The probability of life forming is incredibly tiny. This is true. Unfortunately for brochacho there, the universe is so freakin' huge that it almost definitely had to happen, and has probably happened multiple times.
2. Evolution isn't about "taking parts and making new, unrelated parts". Each step is related to the previous one in some way (for lack of a better way to describe it). A fish does evolve into a mouse. 

This point link back to the previous one about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Again, Mr. Feurerstein doesn't understand that, after the Big Bang, gravity would have attracted particles together, and after lots and lots and loooooooooots of time, created what we see today. Order was instantaneous (and still isn't). Chaos just got a little prettier.

Case 7: Etymology

In the previous two points, der Feurerstein cited the existence of hours as proof of a God that created order. He, of course, ignores how those hours are only dependent on how long it takes a planet to rotate and how humans have themselves set just what an "hour" is. 

But the best part, the topping to this delicious cake of stupid, is the word "universe".

Yes, he cites the word "universe" as proof of a God. A word. He cites a fucking English word as proof of a higher power.

Since "uni" means "one" in Latin and "verse" means "a spoken statement" that obviously equates to God having spoken everything into existence. Since English is a white man's language, I can only assume that God intended the white man to reign supreme.

And science uses the word "universe" to name the "universe". Take that, atheists!

Sacred Cattle

Well... It's been quite a while since I've gotten to sit down and rant about something. But that's alright; I've had something simmering for a week or two now.

That topic, you might ask? It's one that always brings peace, love, and happiness to the world. Also genocide, witch hunts, ritual sacrifices, numerous holy. Ya know, happy-fun-time stuff. Can you guess it yet? That's right, folks: religion! This is going to be great, I can already tell.

Now, let's get to specifics here. I don't have anything against religion overall (except for those Scientologists, but they had it coming anyway). No, my beef with religion is how -- as from what I've personally observed -- they all seem to be about salvation or redemption.

"But Kyle," you're already whining because I offended you in some way, "I don't follow <insert belief here> because I want to be saved/redeemed/forgiven/whateverthedevilyoumightwanttocallit, I just do it because I want to be a good person." Hold up there, chief. Look at that last part. "Because I want to be a good person." Do you really need to follow a faith to be a good person? I mean, sure the faith-base might encourage being a better person, but for what reason? Is it just to be a better person? Just so you're a slightly smaller asshole - and even then, only on the weekends? Seriously, you can be a good person without believing in any specific faith. Just like you can be a bad person while being the biggest Jesus-freak around. I mean, look at me. I'm Catholic, but I'm a really, reeeeeaaaaally shitty person. See the correlation? Religion ≠ Good person. 

Got off on a tangent there. Back to the subject. 

The other week (don't ask me which, that wine they have is strong) I was sitting in mass, paying attention or something like that, when the deacon (not the priest... or maybe it was?) began the homily. Normally, it's a 50/50 if the homily will be interesting, so I usually give i a few minutes before I zone out. Anyway, the homily began, and almost immediately, the topic of salvation came up. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're familiar with the basics of Christianity, so I'll spare you the details, but the topic of salvation came up. Salvation seems to be the ultimate end game for Christians; the thing they strive most for in the world. They will do just about anything if they think it'll net them some bonus points with the Big Guy. Seriously. I've seen people flip out over some crumbs on the floor of a social hall. Not something that makes me to proud to be of the same genus, honestly.

So the homily began, salvation brought up, yadda yyadda. Continuing on, the deacon said something along the lines of "salvation is key to our faith. Without salvation, what would be the point."

And Jesus said "Forget everything else I ever said and just ask nicely."
And thus all were saved.

Wait, what? You mean that whole point of Christianity is to just go to Heaven? Not be a good person? Well... I guess whatever that Jesus dude said is pretty null at this point. Despite, you know, him being the whole reason the religion exists. 

Don't get any of this wrong (though I know somebody will anyway), I don't have anything wrong with a person being religion. A lot of great people have had beliefs about something. However, you shouldn't fear the Judging Bearded Man because you just want to live forever. Be a good person for the damned sake of being a good person. There is no reason why you have to exist in fear. Death is a natural occurrence. That is how life moves forward. Think of it this way: every time someone dies, we move forward just a little more toward being a better species. Or maybe that's every time someone is born... Well, every time someone dies, we the gene pool becomes a little clearer. Or something. I'm just going to try and stop with these metaphors.

So yea. Jesus/Buddah/Zoroaster/Whoever was a great person. Sure, he/she might have said something about living eternally. Sure, that might sound like a pretty sweet deal. Should that be your sole motivation for following any one specific belief though? No. Not to mention that pretty much every religion thinks it's the one true religion (especially Catholicism, conceited bastards), so pretty much everyone is screwed in some way. 

Got that? Don't blindly follow because you want to live forever. What would that even be like? Never progressing forward and experiencing change?

Maybe that's why Republicans like it so much...