In that same desert, we find Mattchu conducting his bi-annual armpit inspection, when once again, a green, lizard-like being with a single eye approaches...
BEAMER: Ahem.
MAATCHU (turning): YOU! Leavesss me alone! I isssss conducting armpit insssspection!
BEAMER (drily): Your armpit can wait. I'm here to correct you again.
At this, Mattchu rises, screaming, and runs towards Beamer. He seems confident, given that Beamer is about his size. The confidence is misplaced. He does not even see how Beamer does it, but moments later he finds himself flat on his back, yet again.
BEAMER (standing over Mattchu): Lesson learned, son -- just because I'm smaller than the others doesn't mean I can't kick your tail. Now let's get down to business. This article you wrote on Mr. H and evolution....why?
MATTCHU (groaning): Uhhh.....I find it difficult to believe that people could be skeptical of evolution these days.
BEAMER (drily): Oh really. Would you care to answer some questions about it?
MATTCHU: Uhhh? Like whats?
BEAMER: I'd like to ask you something about evolutionary transitions. Let's take one in particular....say, the supposed evolution of the horse's hoof.
MATTCHU: Okay! Ha ha!
BEAMER: How many mutations did it take to get from the mostly padded feet of Hyracotherium -- which used to be called Eohippus -- to the modern hoofed foot of Equus?
MATTCHU: Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...........
BEAMER: And when you tell me at least an approximate number, can you tell me what each of those mutations were, and what the survival advantage of each was?
MATTCHU: .................
BEAMER: You don't know, obviously -- no one does. And yet, despite the fact that 99.9999% of all the data needed to prove evolution as it works under the rubric of natural selection is missing, you think people are stupid or insance for not simply accepting it?
MATTCHU: KISS OFF! ROT IN HELL!!
BEAMER (shrugs): Whatever. Let's get to what you say about Mr. Holding. What exactly is your problem with what he wrote?
MATTCHU: Uhhhh...I don't know who on earth would expect Tekton's president to become an "instant expert on creation/evolution issues" by reading books like those that Richard Dawkins writes.
BEAMER: Then I'll tell you who on earth. His name is Brooks Trubee and he goes by "jimbo" on TWeb.
MATTCHU: Oh.....uh....I would like Tekton's president to read books by Dawkins, Kenneth Miller, Douglas Futuyma, and other evolutionary scientists because his ignorance of evolution is so appalling that it's actually worse than his biblical ignorance.
BEAMER: That's nice. I would like for you to learn gymnastics because your ignorance of gymnastics is so appalling that you make mistakes in it worse than mixing up Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar. What's the logic of this argument you're making here? Mr. Holding is beholden to you somehow?
MATTCHU: Uhhhhhh......Does he respect the knowledge of evolutionary biologists who are more informed than he is and doesn't presume to know evolutionary biology better than them?
BEAMER: The book knowledge aspect of it, yes....though since he wrote that article, he asked a couple of them the same questions I just asked you and got nothing but dodges.
MATTCHU: Uhhhhh.......exactly are they wrong in thinking that life is the result of evolutionary change?
BEAMER: Based on the questions he asked them, it's not so much that they're "wrong" as they haven't come even marginally close to satisfying their burden of proof. The data as it stands just as well accords with special creation of some sort.
MATTCHU: Uhhhhh....If he believes that creationism is the better explanation, than that means that he believes that he is better informed on the subject because he adheres to the better informed and better educated hypothesis regarding how life and its diversity came about.
BEAMER: Son, he's waiting for someone like YOU to show that naturalistic evolution IS the better explanation. Do you plan to do that any time soon, or just run your mouth?
MATTCHU: Uhhhhh...Holdingsssesss criticizessses Dawkinsssses! Yet Dawkins is an expert scientist.
BEAMER: That's not the point. Mr. H's point is that by his inability to construct viable analogies, Dawkins shows that he can't be trusted -- he's either lacking in the critical thinking department, or purposely lying to try to convince people of something. Look, Mattchu -- you understand that thinking involves more than just facts, don't you?
MATTCHU: Huh?
BEAMER: Facts are only HALF of getting to the truth. The other half is knowing how to interpret those facts. Now if someone like Dawkins can't even present an accurate analogy, what guarantee do we have that he's interpreted the facts properly?
MATTCHU: Uhhhhhh...What about evolutionists like Kenneth Miller, Douglas Futuyma and others?
BEAMER: What about them? Instead of fussing about people Mr. H doesn't name, how about addressint the point that they show a deficiency in thinking -- or else are using analogy dishonestly to convince people of something?
MATTCHU: Which evolutionists? What? No documented references??
BEAMER: He gave them later in the article, you goofball. What about the analogies? Like the automobile analogy?
MATTCHU: Uhhh...uhhhh...I have never seen or heard automobiles being used as an analogy. I would think it's an odd and crappy analogy myself.... I am not sure of the source of this analogy but it wouldn't surprise me if it was some well-meaning yet ignorant layman.
BEAMER: Wrong. It was used by Tim Berra, an evolutionay zoologist. Mr. H. even says this in his essay. You're apparently using an outdated copy, which doesn't reflect well on you.
MATTCHU: Uhhhh....errrrr...First of all, analogies don't "prove" anything. Analogies are purely illustrative.
BEAMER: No kidding, Sherlock! You sure said this enough times in your article, but you're still bonehead wrong. But in the process of illustration, they are used to prove the viability and coherence of other ideas. To that degree, they ARE arguments -- they are used to defend the clarity and viability of an interpretation of the facts.
MATTCHU: Uhhhh....Secondly, if evolutionists do use analogies that are flawed, it only means that some evolutionists are poor communicators of ideas and that the concepts themselves are not flawed.
BEAMER: No, it means more than that. It means that they either fail to see how badly the analogy fits -- which indicates a lack of critical thinking ability -- or they are purposely misleading people with a false analogy. Either way, it raises questions about their ability to interpret facts.
MATTCHU: Uhhhh...Third, even if Mr. Holding doesn't think the analogies are good, fine. He still has to deal with the case for evolution.
BEAMER: Why? Because you stamp your feet and whine and cry? When will you learn gymnastics, then? Mr. Holding says you have to. Tell you what, Chuckles....you answer his questions, and he'll read all you want him to on the subject. Deal?
MATTCHU: ROT IN HELL! ...most, if not all, analogies are necessarily imperfect. You can always find analogies in which the differences will outweigh the similarities and yet only one particularly striking similarity need to be evident for the analogy to make an illustration.
BEAMER: That's not the point, Mattchu. The point is that the analogies illustrate exactly the OPPOSITE of what they are trying to prove. The auto analogy is a perfect illustration of intelligent design, not of naturalistic evolution.
MATTCHU: HA! If Mr. Holding seriously thinks this analogy "proves" special creation, then he has Hume's classical objections against design to answer from Dialogues on Natural Religion.
BEAMER (shakes head): He's taken Hume down already. Your point?
MATTCHU: Uhhhh...If a car was designed by a human being, that human being is finite and began to exist at one particular point; the human being was made by other human beings. If this analogy proves special creation by a god, then by extending the analogy, the analogy also proves that the creator must have been created. We can then ask where did the creator come from?
BEAMER: You can't be serious, friend. The "who created God" argument is one of the most primtive out there. Rather, this would all point, in the end, to an uncaused cause which by nature is immune to change and destruction.
MATTCHU: Gaaahhh....uh....Mr. Holding in this instance is hypocritical in accusing evolutionists of lacking critical thinking skills, given that if this analogy "proved" anything, it would prove theistic evolution, not special creation.
BEAMER: Um, no, not as it is defined by theistic evolutionists themselves: A theory of theistic evolution (also called evolutionary creation) proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. That doesn't fit with autos being constantly remade and tweaked. Mind you, some define "theistic evolution" so that God somehow guides evolution, but that's just as well called special creation on a micro-scale. Now let's go to where you actually say something new for a change -- that bit where Mr. H. comments on Dawkins' analogy of a squash player.
MATTCHU: HA! So Holding is arguing that all the parts of a system must be in place to begin with in order to be selected? If so, he's laughably ignorant about evolution. Natural selection- the chief driving force of evolutionary change- is not so extreme as to require that an organ or organ system have optimal functioning for it to have any survival value. There need not be a perfect arrangement of optimally functioning parts in order for such a system (be it an organ or organ system) to be selected.
BEAMER (drily): I see you've swallowed the standard canard. But you're just playing bait and switch. You're still admitting that for natural selection to work, whatever the system is, it has to have SOME sort of function, because otherwise it has no survival value. And you see, that's the point of Mr. H's newer questions, which he can't seem to get anything but dodgeballs on. For natural selection to work, every mutation needs some sort of survival value -- not necessarily the final "optimal" function. But if a mutation has no function, and gives no advantage, then how can it be selected? Do you think you can explain this? Is it just dumb luck? Dawkins sure didn't. Maybe you can find something in Miller that does? Well?
Son, this is the problem Mr. H. has with evolution now -- he didn't think of this when he first wrote that article, but now, it's his main beef. A mutation has to offer function in order for it to be selected -- because it has to give some sort of survival advantage to be passed on, right? Well, if the mutation isn't in any way functional, what's natural selection got to work on? Nothing! The only way it will be preserved is either by dumb luck, or if it is functional enough to confer an advantage. Mr. Holding isn't arguing that "natural selection would never allow for an adaptation unless the parts of that adaptation were all in place to begin with and functioning optimally" -- he never said that. But he would argue today that there has to be SOME function! So how about answering Mr. H's question about the horses' hooves?
MATTCHU: Uhhhhhh.....duhhhhh.....
BEAMER: Anyway, Mr. H. had his discussion with Mr. Gerkin -- who you could stand to learn from, especially when it comes to humility -- about losses of function; now what's this about a language analogy?
MATTCHU: Uhhhh....The best analogy I can think of is with the evolution of language. Language evolves over time and sometimes we encounter words with letters that have lost their function and contain useless remains from a previous time in human history.
BEAMER (drily): You're sure no brighter than Dawkins, are you? Language is also designed by an intelligence -- just because it isn't laid out in a plan in advance doesn't mean that intelligent force doesn't shape it, Mattchu. It's more "as you go along" but it's still a design, and you're still illustrating a process closer to special creation than naturalistic evolution. It's just a bad argument, son.
MATTCHU: Guh...uh....You don't have to be an expert to do this and there is no reason why you shouldn't even try. I am not an expert on evolution but I understand the theory and the evidence for it because scientists have taken the time to explain their theories and the case for them.
BEAMER (rolls eye): I'll let that speak for itself. Some freethinker you are. (Shakes head.) Anyways....Mr. H. answered your little screed about the clarity of the Bible ages back, so no need to say more on that. You're the one proving yourself a complete joke, Mattchu -- because you don't even bother to check things. That error with Berra is the most embarrassing this round...yes, you are a joke -- and you know what the punchline is?
MATTCHU (growling): THISSSSS!
At this, Mattchu swings a roundhouse right towards Beamer, but Beamer easily ducks it. Mattchu's own fist swings around and he hits himself square in the face, knocking himself senseless. Beamer pauses.
BEAMER: Well....that sure is a good analogy for what's happening, isn't it?
