Kyle Butt is an AssMay 21
So today on the WAS Facebook page, somebody posted this crap in response to my post about Evolution. It’s an article by Kyle Butt, that’s right… Butt, on apologeticspress.org.
I got really excited because it’s the first of probably many Christian apologists that will undoubtedly come along and start posting their propaganda and senseless bullshit to my page, and I always love a good opportunity to rip these misguided inferior minds to shreds. And I’m not just being an asshole here. I do stand by the notion that it takes a lesser mind to buy into the god shit, and I have statistics to back that claim up. See, there’s a negative correlation between belief in god and level of education. As a general rule, correlation does not mean causation, however in some cases it dead on does. And unless a religious apologist can come along and offer me a viable alternate explanation as to why the data negatively correlates, I will maintain my position that is it simply because it is easier to hold these beliefs when you don’t understand the science behind the alternative.
I should mention that I don’t mean this in a bad way. There are just some things that there’s no easy way to say. I sincerely think that if more religious people had a formal education and were educated in science correctly, the chances of them holding on to their belief in fairy tales are drastically reduced. Education can be very selective. For instance, a person can be very educated in the ways of musical composition, but not know a thing about math. In this same respect, a theist can be very well-educated in a variety of topics, but usually falls short in the science department. The reason we see the negative correlation with level of education and belief in the supernatural is because getting a general well-rounded college education touches enough on science and anthropology to give most reasonable people enough logical criteria to abandon their improbable beliefs. I have been “blessed” with the fortune of being very well-educated in both science and Christianity, and therefore am able to present a much more solid and logically sound perception of the validity of both. Before we begin, let’s take a look at Kyle Heinie’s credentials, shall we?
“Kyle Butt is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament.”
Wow. That sounds like a really well-rounded education right there. It’s not like Kyle would be biased or anything, right? Let’s rebuttal Kyle Asswipe’s main points, shall we?
“If it is the case that evolutionists are open-minded and constantly looking to adjust their theories, then we would expect them to be anxious to critically consider evolution, to welcome evidence that opposes key evolutionary ideas, and to promote open, two-sided communication about the difficulties inherent in the theory. What we actually see, however, is the exact opposite.”
Holy shit Kyle. I’d like to congratulate you because I think you officially know less about science than anybody else I’ve ever encountered in my entire life. In any science class, and as soon as you’re introduced to the concept of science in grade school, the first thing you learn how to do is abide by the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is a method that we utilize to test hypothesis before we assign them the status of a scientific “theory”, which is very different than the way the word “theory” is used in colloquial English. This is a distinction Kyle Bullocks here doesn’t understand, as well as many other science-illiterates. I’ve touched on this before, but before a hypothesis is awarded a “theory” standing in science, it must be tested so many times over that there is very little chance that it can be refuted. And the reason we do this is exactly to make sure we objectively consider all evidence. So in actuality, Evolution has been continually tested and scrutinized for 150 years, and has passed every test thrown at it. The problem with this opposing “evidence” that you mention (not that I’ve seen it because you didn’t actually include it in your writing) is that it probably fails to be classified as evidence since it fails the basic criteria required to be objective and factual. Evolution, when first presented by Darwin in 1859 was violently opposed by not only Christianity, but also by the scientific community. It took years and years of gathering overwhelming support for the concept, while at the same time thwarting (by means of testing) several attempts at dismantle with the same type of lame “evidence” that you’re probably talking about.
“In 2002, the Cobb County, Georgia School Board decided to place stickers in biology textbooks concerning the theory of evolution… …Is there any subject in our school systems that should not be studied with an open mind and critically considered?”
No. Which is why there’s no need for your fucking stickers you moron.
“Due to the manner in which the sticker refers to evolution as a theory, the sticker also has the effect of undermining evolution education”
Right. Because gravity is also a theory along with relativity, and most mathematical formulas are also considered theories. I don’t think we have enough stickers to go around. But don’t you see that the whole reason we call these theories in the first place is because we’re not arrogant enough to claim anything to be 100% true in science? And when you single evolution out and specifically draw attention to the fact that science calls it a theory like it does everything else, you absolutely undermine it’s validity by drawing special attention to it and acting like it has special status compared to other scientific theories. You act like Evolution sat in front of a panel of judges and was legally assigned a status of theory because there’s not enough evidence to support it. In reality, science itself decided to call it a theory like it does everything else because it’s critical and open-minded about everything it does you jackass.
“In that volume, they insisted that the concept of an Intelligent Designer should not be allowed in the public school classroom. They further claimed that evolution is the only viable option that should be presented in science classrooms.”
Well duh. Because science belongs in science class and religion belongs in fucking religion class. What’s wrong with you? Again, it’s baffling how little you know about science. There’s no evidence whatsoever for Intelligent Design, so that’s why it doesn’t qualify as science.
“What happens when the theory of evolution is questioned? What should be done when students want to critically analyze evolution in order to test its veracity? Should students be encouraged to approach evolution with an open mind and let the merits of the theory speak for themselves? Absolutely not! Critical analysis of evolution must be avoided at all cost.”
That’s your dumb-ass interpretation. If there’s evidence piling up for anything it’s going toward the fact that you’re an idiot. The whole point of science is to approach everything with an open mind and critically analyze and question everything. I’ve mentioned this before as well, but having an open mind doesn’t mean we have to entertain every stupid idea that pops into Kyle Keister’s delusional brain. There are standards, especially for people who actually know how to think critically.
“What, then, should take the place of the “counterproductive debates” against creationists?”
How about you conduct an objective double blind study and get it published in a respectable science journal like everybody else has to before their scientific claims get taken the slightest bit seriously? What makes you so special that you don’t have to follow the rules you asshole?
“Evolutionists understand that if students are given the opportunity to look at evolution with an open mind, study it carefully, and consider it critically, the theory collapses under its own, insupportable weight.”
Except for the fact that scientists have been doing this for 150 years and evolution has yet to fail a single challenge.
Science welcomes all forms of critical thinking, and evolution is no exception. Kyle here offers all kinds of misguided interpretations of half-true statements, and expects us to take him seriously that Religion is being oppressed by science? Give me a break. I love how he offers up no evidence whatsoever that actually conflicts with evolution. That’s because there is no known evidence that exists currently. If there was, science would drop evolution like it’s hot.
The problem with most of the evidence “against” evolution is that it’s not logically sound or proven. It’s all random theory and speculation and questions that we may never have answers to. But just because we can’t explain something yet doesn’t mean that all of the supporting evidence we have is null and void. The fact that it got dark last night is evidence that the sun doesn’t exist, right? Seriously, that’s how lame the arguments against evolution sound because they come from people who don’t actually know anything about evolution, much like this example argument would come from somebody who didn’t know about the rotation of the earth.
Oh Kyle. You’re adorable. It’s great that you’re trying so hard, but you have a lot to learn. Get your head out of your last name!
The Stupider You Are, the More Likely You Are to Believe in God
Scientific Theory is NOT the same as the English Definition
Science Tests Shit and Religion Always Gets a Big Fat “F”
Kyle Butt’s Bullshit Credentials