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.


About rentafriend2000
Rocking my 40's with a heart full of love and muffins, science and technology. Jesus loves me and wants me to totally rock! And I am here to help.

2 Responses to How Darwin invented the Internet

  1. agnophilo says:

    In order to be a young earth creationist you have to reject basically all of modern science because the concept of deep time is found in everything from geology to physics to astronomy to biology, paleontology etc. Not to mention hovind (who you seem to have so much respect for despite him being in prison for tax fraud at the moment) attacking evolution by saying there are “six types of evolution” which he rejects, which covers about half of science.

    The claim that darwin invented all technology is a strawman argument, nothing more.

    • Thanks for writing in again.
      To cut to the quick you make a few simple mistakes in arguing here. The first is an error of equivocation. You are using the phrase “Modern Science” to mean “Evolutionary Dogma.” This is one of my points in this post. If I take you on face value, you believe that, In order to be a Young Earth Creationist, you have to reject atomic theory, robots, microwave ovens, the internet, and cheese whiz. Obviously you don’t mean that, which is why you clarify by trying to argue that deep time “is found in everything.” However, deep time is NOT found in the sciences, it never was. It is IMPOSED on the sciences. First because it is superfluous. You do not need to have an evolutionary mind set to understand what limestone is made of, or to use a microscope, or to build a robot. It is not foundational to ANY science. It is peripheral and useless except as a guiding dogma to retain atheistic naturalism and reject theism. Second, because it was NOT developed by observing data and drawing conclusions, but by first coming to the conclusion that the Bible is wrong. Deep time wound up in science due to people like Charles Lyell, a lawyer who expressly stated he was trying to create an alternate history of the earth to replace the one in the Bible. He was not a scientist, he was a writer of science fiction.

      Your reference to Kent Hovind is merely an Ad Hominim attack (meaning an attack of the messenger, in place of the message). It does nothing to discredit anything he ever taught. And again, you are implying that the evolutionary additions to those six realms of science ARE those six realms of science. which is simply not so. Jupiter remains a planet even if you reject the Big bang. Our sun is a mass of incandescent gas (A gigantic nuclear furnace) even if you believe God made it that way. To reject a certain origin story does not mean to reject the science which studies the object whose origin is in debate.

      Read my argument again, because it seems you missed my point. The claim that Darwin invented the internet is not a straw man, it’s reducto ad absurdum- reducing the argument to absurdity by taking it to it’s logical extreme. If your original argument is to be taken at face value, then as a young earth creationist, I must reject ALL modern science, which means the internet. If I convince you that I am right, YOU must reject the existence of atoms, the use of microscopes, and the internet. Thus, on your argument, the existence of the internet is dependent on the acceptance of Atheistic Darwinism. But that is absurd, which is my point exactly.
      Your Rent A Friend

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics made Friendly

Reluctantly Aging

One man’s futile struggle against inevitability

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics Made Friendly

RaF Ministries News

What's new at Rent-A-Friend Ministries

Bible Science Forum

Creation Evolution Cosmology

Superhero etc.


Creation Science 4 Kids

creation science worded for all of us

christian ammunition

He that dasheth in pieces is come up before thy face: keep the munition...fortify thy power mightily--NAHUM 2:1

Surprised by Logic

Logic for the ordinary Joe and Jane is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

Rent-A-Friend 2000's Biblical Thinking and Good Times!

Part of the Creation Soapbox Apologetics Ministry

%d bloggers like this: