Chuck Norris Era Begins

| | Comments (21) | TrackBacks (0)

As if WorldNetDaily actually needed to get any better. Well, now it has.

In deference to my good buddy Zimzo, I will avoid all hyperbole and simply say: Welcome aboard, Chuck!

Alleged Chuck Norris Fact: "There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live." It's funny. It's cute. But here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: It's not real. It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really just a list of creatures God has allowed to live. We are not creations of random chance. We are not accidents. There is a God, a Creator, who made you and me. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other creatures.

I can tell already Chuck Norris's column is going to be one of my regular stops on the Web.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Chuck Norris Era Begins.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

hey Joe.

it doesn't make sense to say that the theory of evolution is not real. The theory does, in fact, exist.

Unlike your own theory, it is rooted in scientific thought, and can potentially to be disproved.

The creator-god theory seems to be based on a significantly less rigorous, "everything is so complex that there just has to be a god" sentiment. Much like revolving barbershop polls, this idea is quaint and meaningful only in a symbolic sense.

I haven't revealed my own theory, General - unless you are implying that I am Chuck Norris. Hmm, I suppose it might be useful to let that ambiguity persist...

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

i was talking to chuck norris


you certainly were

Kevin said:

Whoa! I thought this site was scary, who knew about WND? What's with all the anger over there?

WND is new to you? I don't think you should be visiting that site, Kevin. We like you just the way you are.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

chuck norris writes a conservative opinion column. now I've heard everything

i bet it could be argued that this chuck norris fact actually does disprove the idea of intelligent design, and possibly even g-d itself.

Kevin said:

Yes indeed, WND is new to me. I wish I read your comment sooner because I just bought the key chain radiation alarm and bought a hundred shares of stock in Zion Oil, Inc. What can I say, fear works.

Oh c'mon, General, Chuck seems like a decent fellow.

Kevin, just don't start buying gold.

zimzo said:

Bruce Lee can kick his ass, even now. However, Norris, is at least a slight improvement over the people you usually read for intellectual stimulus.

Funny, isn't it, how proponents of the theory of evolution insist on their own intellectual superiority.

From what I can tell, intelligent design theory can claim proponents who are every bit as well credentialed as the those who advocate evolution.

Both camps also include less credentialed members of the non-scientific public. Stay Puft says that proponents of intelligent design provide a simplistic explanation for all that we see: everything is so complex there must be a God. Proponents of intelligent design say that proponents of evolution provide a fairy tale explanation for everything we see: something coming from nothing.

If we try to avoid making a caricature out of the other side of this debate, what we see is two major theories, both with multiple variations and both making sense of the same evidence. Science alone cannot settle the debate at this point in human history. Something more is needed. Most people make their decision based on authority and faith or both. We decide which theory to believe with little thought based on authority (ie what we were taught) or we have faith to bridge the gap between evidence and our theory of choice. Faith in future scientific discoveries...
Faith in deity...

Let's respectfully keep investigating. One thing we should all be able to agree on is that we do not know all there is to know.

And, in the meantime, let's confront our own biases. After all, if intelligent design is true, it doesn't tell us much about the outside force or personality that gave the universe its start, but it does leave open the possibility that we are responsible to someone other than ourselves. As Kai Nielson says, he doesn't WANT that to be true.

Zimzo, don't you go bad mouthing Ann Coulter.

LC, I took evolution at face value until about a year ago when it's many flaws were explained to me. Still don't know anything about ID though.

zimzo said:

Sorry, LC, a few factual errors. ID and evolution are not "two major theories, both with multiple variations and both making sense of the same evidence." As of yet there is no evidence for ID, no experiments have been done to test the theory. On the other hand there are mountains of evidence for evolution and thousands of experiments have been conducted. ID and Evolution are not equal because ID is not a science. Its theories are not testable or provable. There are not an equal number of "credentialed" scientists who believe in evolution and ID. The vast majority of credentialed biologists subscribe to evolution. Most lists you will see of "scientists" who reputedly believe in ID contain few to no biologists. The idea of "something coming from nothing" as you put is not a description of evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution. There is no tenet of evolution that contends that something came from nothing. The phrase does not appear in Darwin's works. To chracterize evolution that way betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory.

To equate ID and evolution is to equate people who believe the world is flat and people who believe the world is round. It's to equate people who believe in the existence of gravity and people who believe we are all held down with magic thumbtacks.

I would be interested to know, Joe, what "flaws" in evolution were "explained" to you. And I would be interested to know LC what evidence makes ID a rival theory to evolution.

According to Natural History magazine which ran a special report featuring proponents of both sides, "Most biologists have concluded that the proponents of intelligent design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science."

Read this report in its entirety and then tell me that ID and evoluion are both equally unproven theories:

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

I don't think it's true that "intelligent design theory can claim proponents who are every bit as well credentialed as the those who advocate evolution"

As far as I can tell, this debate is taking place well outside the scientific community.

of course the theory of evolution could potentially be incorrect (in it's present form). It's based on evidence, that's how science works.

The idea that "we do not know all there is to know" is the driving force behind science. ID looks like an attempt to cut-and-run on science. It can't be disproved, it relies more on what we don't know than on what we do. That isn't science.

evolutionary biologists admit that evolution may be disproved at some point. One does not need to have faith in evolution because it is a theory.

Also, disproving evolution accomplishes nothing for the ID people. If, through scientific investigation, evolution is eventually proven incorrect, it doesn't follow that a man with a big beard lives in the sky manifesting reality for all eternity, only that something else is taking place biologically which evolution doesn't adequetly account for.

But this "everything is so complex" thing isn't an oversimplification. It's the argument which is often made. It's Behe's thesis in his book "Darwin's Black Box" (Behe is one of the more respectable proponents of ID, although I think he's still something of a laughing stalk among mainstream biologists)

here are some links:

church of the flying spaghetti monster-

Feet bones in whale skeletons:

I don't know about ID but what I heard about evolution is there is no fossil record of intermediary species between "stages".

I.e. there are bears, and there are whales, but no bear-whales. No sponge-crabs. No bunny-foxes. etc

zimzo said:

The idea that there are significant gaps in the fossil record that disprove evolution is one of the common myths proffered by creationsists.

From "The Fossils Say Yes" by Donald Prothero:

"Fossil evidence supporting evolution has continued to mount, particularly in the past few decades. DNA analysis, moreover, has helped make sense of how the evidence fits together in the family tree of life on Earth. Unfortunately, many people still think, quite erroneously, that the fossil record shows no "transitional forms." In large part, that misconception is the product of the campaign of misinformation--or disinformation--spread by the creationist movement.

The fossil record is far from perfect, of course. By most estimates, less than 1 percent of all the species that have ever lived are preserved as fossils. The reason for the scarcity is simply that the physical conditions needed to turn a dead organism into a fossil lasting millions of years are unusual.

Nevertheless, there are numerous excellent specimens that reflect transitional stages between major groups of organisms. Many more fossils exhibit how "infinitely numerous gradations" connect the species. The one caveat is that when a sequence of fossils appears to follow a direct line of descent, the chances are slim that they actually bear such precise interrelations. Paleontologists recognize that when one fossil looks ancestral to another, the first fossil is more safely described as being closely related to the actual ancestor."

Read the whole article:

suburbanite said:

Theories are just that, until proven. Scientific proof has a specific punchlist. No current theory on either side has met that list yet. (Have we thus strayed into the realm of faith, in that believers in theory do so even though they "have not seen"?)

Back to the main subject! My favorite Chuck Norris "fact": Chuck Norris never sleeps. He waits.

My kind of person!

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

hey, that, "the world is so complex that there just has to be a god" argument has a name: "irreducible complexity"

I'm not sure if Behe invented the term or just popularized it. Either way, it's an interesting idea.

for a nice primer on irreducible complexity, read the wikipedia article on it at:

zimzo said:

Well, Suburbanite there are mounds of evidence proving evolution and as of yet nothing that disproves it. On the other hand, there is not a single piece of evidence proving ID. So it is incorrect to say they are both theories that aren't proven. Gravity is also a "theory" but that doesn't mean that magic thumbtacks is an acceptable alternative theory.

Even the main proponent of the idea of "Irreducible Complexity" Michael Behe has admitted there are flaws in his theory.

suburbanite said:

Sorry, zim, I must have missed it: when did it change to the Fact of Evolution? I missed the published peer-reviewed study, I guess, with the documentation of the repeatable process....

We will not know all the answers in our limited lifetimes, nor may the human race ever know. And we'll never know that either. Hence, in my opinion, bashing heads (and making policy!) over it is basically fruitless.

zimzo said:

I never said evolution was a fact, suburbanite. I said it was a theory with quite a bit of evidence supporting it. ID is a theory with no evidence supporting it.

It is because of this kind of willful that American students in grades 4 through 12 now rank 18 out of 24 industrialized nations in math and science.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here