Monday, February 13, 2006

A scientist's guide to creationism

Tony pointed out to me the big intelligent design argument following our last post on parasitic wasps. Of course the same old predictable things were said. These may be enough to convince people who believe that all opinions are created equal. Then it hit me. The holy grail of creationists is to be able to convince scientists. What creationists need are scientific tools to sound more convincing. Hopefully with the help of this guide you should be able to get into the scientist's mind like the stinger of that wasp.

part1: Scientist can be very hard-headed. They use certain things you might not be familiar with for logical deductions. Facts are things you can find in books. You might want to refrain from quoting the bible, as scientists do not like old litterature. Thankfully most scientist do not actually check the litterature that is quoted. I suggest you start with something like "A coat hanger is 44 inches long if straightened". It is best to quote another scientist and the year to sound more authoritative. For example " in 2005, a team of nobel laureates from Cambridge conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of coat hangers and found that on average they are 112cm long for the typical north american caucasian male". Notice the switch to the metric system. Throw in a lot of facts quickly and you will confuse the scientist and he will think you have read a lot of these books.

part2: Scientist use a specific kind of jargon. Scientist mistrust laymen's terms. You want to show you can also use big words and can talk the talk. Current favorites include nanotechnology, ontology, somatic, agonist, lordosis. Pepper your talk with them and you will destabilise the poor little scientist.

part 3: Now that you have him where you want him, it's time to bring out the big guns. Figures. Scientist often only pay attention to figures so you want to use a lot of them. Try to use them in a logical order to build your case.

Here we can clearly see that one should believe either in intelligent design or creationism. Because really who want to be the blue guy.

Furthermore, the "theory" of evolution does not make sense. A wookie? It does not make sense.

part 4: Finish him with statistics. Scientist trust statistics. Mostly because they do not understand them. It's a known fact that 95% of biologist suck in math. Say something like "a paired non-parametric quadruple ANOVA assuming a gaussian distribution combined with a bose-einstein post test gives us p<0.0000000000001.

Here we can clearly see that God has very small error bars.

Conclusion: Here the scientist expects some kind of model. So in conclusion we conclude that God made stuff.


Bayman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bayman said...

Excellent work, my good Dr. Coward. This is clearly science of the highest calibre. I'm convinced.

Anonymous said...

I don't get it.
So Science > religion?

Anonymous said...

You could have at least tried to learn something about creationism before you wrote this ridiculous article showing how little you know about it.

People say creationists pretend to understand science, but are ignorant of it. In this article, a scientist pretends to understand creationism, but is ignorant of it. If both sides learned from each other with an open mind, creationists would realize that commonly accepted science isn't as crazy as they thought it was, and scientists would realize that creationists aren't as crazy as they thought they were.

Unfortunately, this is probably never going to happen, becuase both sides just want to continue being ignorant of each other. What a shame.