Monday, May 2, 2011

Creationists and Lactose Intolerance

I was jokingly referred to a CMI article about lactose intolerance by a friend so I obligingly went to have a look at it. What I saw there just blew my mind. I had to read many lines several times saying to myself “WHAAAAAAAAAT?????” They would jump from accusing 'evolutionists' of equivocating selection and evolution while simultaneously parading their own blatant ignorance of the topic. A notable example of this is their idiotic assertion that if lactose intolerance was the original state (a misguided term to begin with evolutionary speaking) then being able to drink milk disproves evolution. It’s just so mind-numbingly stupid that I cannot fathom how they can function as human beings.

On top of that inanity, they go on to proudly state that lactose intolerance lines up perfectly with biblical creationism and not evolution. They say that the ability to drink milk as an adult is a negative mutation and correlates with ‘the Fall’. I've dealt with the issue of the fall before with parasitic organisms, and I can’t help but face-palm when I hear that argument.

Where it gets really awful is where they quote someone saying that this forced a change in thinking as if that was a bad thing, and claim that evolution had to make an about face. This shows so clearly that they simply just do not know what the fuck they’re talking about and they certainly do not understand how science works. We change our minds about things all the time, because we make predictions all the time, and when the observations do not match up exactly with the prediction, we adjust the theory to accommodate this new fact. This is a strength of the scientific method, not a weakness. We develop falsifiable theories that make predictions, completely the opposite of what creationists do. They make unfalsifiable claims or false claims that have no predictive value, or make predictions that have already been falsified. When the evidence doesn’t align with their doctrine, instead of adjusting that, they have to twist and distort the evidence, as they have done with this issue.


  1. They're still using this concept of "adding and removing information" like there's some concrete scientific idea behind it. They then talk about an information "loss" while simultaneously claiming that a mutation gave us something we didn't have before. Um... what?

    Also, they mention the "black-people-are-less-evolved-than-white-people idea." Who the fuck thinks that? And what does it even mean to be "less evolved?"

  2. Exactly, it just shows that they don't understand evolution AT ALL.