|email - November 2008|
Since evolutionists can’t argue with the facts, they argue with our jokes.
In our February 2006 feature article, “What’s Love Got to Do with It?”, we explored the problem the theory of evolution has explaining altruism. In that article we joked about people who love cats. Cyrus couldn’t take the joke.
Subject: Stick to the truth
Your arguments would be much more compelling if your writers would stick to fact. Your site posted this statement:
That kind of statement can come only from ignorance. Cats may not really be useful pets, but, they can be very affectionate, and they can be cooperative. I speak from personal experience and from the reported experiences of others. The evidence for cats displaying affection are [sic] so numerous and so prevalent that only those blind to any reality which displeases them could remain unaware.
I am not making any attempt to explain why some people love cats as pets, nor am I making any claim about reciprocity, I am just pointing out that any claim that cats are not affectionate and not cooperative is an unjustified assumption. Since your site so frequently speaks against unjustifiable assumptions, you weaken your own arguments when you make the same error.
Ironically, in his last paragraph, he admits he can’t explain how a love for cats could have evolved, which was our only point. Love makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective.
We use humor because it can make a point more strongly than simple statements can. The fact that this is still bothering Cyrus two and a half years after it was written means that it has made impression on him. It bothers him enough that love can’t be explained by the theory of evolution that he wrote to us to complain about our teasing.
Of course, some people love cats, and they enjoy having them as pets. The question is, “Where did that love come from?” It certainly isn’t a result of natural selection’s selfish struggle for survival.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month