ReligionScience

It’s Like He’s Trying to Explain Evolution to Fuckwits

Those were my husband’s words upon viewing the following clip of Dr Ahmed Kutty, author of Adam’s Gene and the Mitochondrial Eve. From the title of the book alone your alarm bells should be ringing, but from the subtitle you know it’s going to be awesome: The Non-incestuous Descent of Man from Adam and Eve: A Paleo-anthropologic and Scientific Synthesis and Evolution Based on the Epics of Hinduism the Bible And the Qur’an: What Are the Scriptures Saying?

That’s right: an entire book devoted to the challenge of using science to justify Biblical creationism while reassuring Christians that no, you did not come from a guy doing the nasty with his sister. (But he may have fucked a monkey.)

Be warned: the stupid is strong in this one. Please keep all palms far from all faces throughout the entirety of this clip.

Yes, the idiot anchor did suggest that the Bible is only wrong about EVERYTHING scientific because God figured the ancient people were too fucking stupid to understand natural selection, but they would totally get the idea of clay dolls coming to life. IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

Rebecca Watson

Rebecca leads a team of skeptical female activists at Skepchick.org. She travels around the world delivering entertaining talks on science, atheism, feminism, and skepticism. There is currently an asteroid orbiting the sun with her name on it. You can follow her every fascinating move on Twitter or on Google+.

Related Articles

28 Comments

  1. @Elles the Vampire Slayer: “Clay is the first propagating life form? It can make copies of itself?”

    I think I’ve read something like this before in one of Dawkin’s books. It’s an idea that clay might have formed a substrate for some simple, self-replicating chemistry which could be construed as the first form of life. This in turns comes from speculation about what the first replicators might have looked like. This is an interesting idea, but I’m not aware that anyone has formed a testable hypothesis on this yet.

  2. Can he do this for the Norse creation myth too? Odin formed the first humans from logs…

    No, doesn’t seem possible. I guess Christianity is better after all. Dang, I’ll have to do like my distant ancestors and turn my Thor’s hammers into crosses.

    I think maybe what this book tries to do is better than what the IDiots are doing, but it’s a close call.

  3. Oddly enough Mitochondrial Eve, and Y-Chromosomal Adam lived thousands of years apart, (140,000 yrs, and 60,000 yrs) and would never have met. (look it up)

    Unless of course lifetimes were much longer then, and Adam went for older women.

  4. At least he’s not Glenn Beck, LOL.

    I have two responses to this. The first is “AARGH, the science! Mah brainz hurts!” The way he’s trying to make the two very disparate pieces fit together? But then, he’s obviously very into his faith too. It’s kind of sad. You can see in people like him that he’s TRYING to embrace the science, whilst not compromising his faith, and while that makes him a very bad scientist, he’s at least trying to make sense of the world in a way that’s not completely offensive. But then, ‘AARRGH SCIENCE!”

  5. Rebecca wrote

    Yes, the idiot anchor did suggest that the Bible is only wrong about EVERYTHING scientific because God figured the ancient people were too fucking stupid to understand natural selection, but they would totally get the idea of clay dolls coming to life.

    In fact the anchor was (poorly) representing a recent move by a few conservative Christian theologians to relieve them of the necessity to take the Biblical creation story literally. The basic idea is that the Bible was written to convey a theological message to an ancient Near Eastern audience, not a scientific message, and the writers used ancient Near Eastern conceptions of how nature works to convey that theological message. See here:

    As explained in the summary of views, maybe God, working through the author(s) of Genesis, used familiar theories about physical reality (in ancient near-east science) in order to more effectively challenge false theories about spiritual reality (in polytheistic nature religions) and teach correct theology.

    The discussion of clay referred to the ideas of Graham Cairns-Smith, which are controversial but not completely out of the ball park. Dawkins did discuss Cairns-Smith’s ideas in one of his books–I don’t now recall which one. Read Cairns-Smith’s Seven Clues to the Origin of Life. It’s fun.

  6. Gotta love the ol’ ‘the bible just explains things the way the people of the time could understand them’ argument.

    Yes, ‘slavery and genocide are bad’ is much too complex. Let’s start them out with ‘here’s how to drive an awl through your slaves’ ears, and BTW be sure to kill every man, woman, child and beast when you’re out marauding.’

  7. My creationist idiot is a bit rusty. I guess it’s true, if you don’t use it and forget it. I don’t suppose someone can who is fluent, or whose creationist idiot is better can provide a translation. Plus I kind of zoned out when the needle on my stupid meter went into the danger zone.

  8. OH

    THE STUPID

    IT BURNS!!!

    Did anyone catch the fact that the first subject he was speaking of, the 14000 yo man, he said was genetically identical to us. Then, he turned around and said that Adam and Eve were the first of the modern humans….

    AM I THE ONLY ONE SEEING THE CONTRADICTION?

    He also talks about not having contradictions between science and faith…because the Bible doesn’t contradict itself? FAIL

    Finally, God was trying to explain the origin of life to modern humans in terms they could understand. Ummm….its been a really long time since I read a bible, but I don’t remember monkeys ever being mentioned. I have no reason to believe they knew about these animals, let alone understand they were decendents from a common ancestor. If god really wanted to, he probably could have said something along the lines of:

    blockquote And lo, the spirit of the Lord moved upon the land and upon the fish of the sea, and upon the creatures of the forest. And lo, the spirit of the Lord did find a monkey of the forest, and he was good. And the Lord spake unto him, saying, “Rise up, ye monkey of the forest, and be a monkey no more. You shall rise up, and you shall take to the shore. I shall send for you another monkey, and you and her shall rise up from the dirt and build temples unto the Lord they God.” blockquote

  9. @RBH:

    Graham Cairns-Smith ideas on “self replicating clay” where actually quite seriously discussed for a while in relation to abiogenesis.
    Dawkins talks about it in the Blind Watchmaker if I am not completely mistaken, but it is also mentioned in various papers up until as recently as 2004 in Leslie Orgels wonderful review on the literature of the so called RNA world.
    Although nowadays Cairns-Smith’s work is mainly mentioned to give a historical account rather then to seriously argue a scientific point.

    Prebiotic chemistry and the origin of the RNA world. Orgel, L.E. 2004 Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 39 (2), pp. 99-123

    <– it is worth a read or skim if you are interested in abiogenesis and well versed in molecular biology.

  10. If one is a religious believer, it is best not to try to make science conform with scriptures because then you are in danger of falling down an intellectual rabbit hole. But I suspect this faith-only position is very unsatisfying for many believers, like Dr. Kutty. So he tries to make the two coincide, and down the hole he goes!

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close