How many Darwinists does it take to screw-in a light bulb?

[nahomadis]

Charles Darwin: None. But if it could be shown that the bulb entered the socket without a series of clockwise turns, my theory would absolutely break down.

 

ACLU: None! We have separation of church and state in this country.

 

Eugenie Scott: None. To say a Darwinist did it is not a scientific explanation.

 

Panda’s Thumb: None. To say that light bulbs don’t screw themselves in is not a testable proposition. You can’t prove they don’t. That would be an argument from incredulity. You are committing a ‘Darwinist Of The Gaps’ fallacy.

 

Carl Sagan: None. Time and chance are sufficient. Eventually it is inevitable that the bulb will be in the socket. Say, in a billion years.

 

Darwinian College Lecturer: None. The quintessentially non-random process of natural selection is sufficient. Those objects capable of giving off light when screwed into sockets will be in sockets. Those that aren’t will be in the trash.

 

Richard Dawkins: None. A light bulb that gives off 1% light intensity is very much worth having. A bulb sitting on the shelf at the supermarket gives off a certain amount of light. One in the cupboard at home gives off more. One five feet from the socket gives off more, and one two feet away even more. One in the socket gives off the most of all. It is therefore inevitable that the bulb will reach the socket.

 

Stephen J. Gould: None. It’s called punctuated illumination. The bulb jumped into the socket when no one was looking. Gradually.

 

Kenneth Miller: None. The bulb was already serving a function: providing rigidity to its corrugated packaging on the supermarket shelf. Co-option did the rest.

 

Theistic Evolutionist: All of the above explanations are substantially correct. But the more important question is the meaning of the light.

 

Philip Johnson: Is that the right question to ask? Maybe we should ask other questions to subject the status quo to more scrutiny than the scientific establishment would want us to.

 

Michael Behe: The bulb could not screw itself into the socket. A working lightbulb and socket is an irreducibly complex system that begs intelligent agency.

 

Stephen Meyer: Follow the evidence to its logical conclusion. How do you explain the explosion of fully fledged light bulbs everywhere, each fitted into its socket, with no earlier intermediate forms?

 

William Dembski: Who knows? Mathematically, Intelligent Agency is more probable than self-screwing lightbulbs.

 

Answers In Genesis: One. Any more questions?

 

Steve Jones: None. Only stupid people would think otherwise.

 

Stephen J. Gould: We can not say one or more Darwinists did it without violating the law of non-overlapping illuminarium.

 

Discovery Institute: Teach the controversy. Students should be exposed to the scientific evidence for as well as the scientific evidence against self-screwing light bulbs.

 

NUT: We are extremely concerned by fundamentallist sponsors of state schools who teach children to think there is a viable alternative to self-screwing light bulbs.

 

Guillermo Gonzalez: Who knows? But isn’t it interesting that other light bulbs allowed the Darwinist to see what he was doing as he screwed in this light bulb.

 

Darwin Chorus: Oh, yeah? Which Darwinist? What is his name? If you won’t tell us that, you’re being disingenuous, and therefore no one screwed in the light bulb!

 

Flying Spaghetti Monster: Two. But don’t ask me how they got in there. Oh. 'Darwinists'? I thought you said 'fruit flies'.

 

Michael Ruse: Are you trying to create a theocracy? The light bulbs in the reeducation camps will be depressingly dim. Unless they use candles. Do Creationists know how to make fire?

 

Internet Infidel: First answer this: How many priests did it take to burn Galileo at the stake? Huh?!?

 

Panda’s Thumb: If a Darwinist had screwed it in, it would be an efficient fluorescent, not a wasteful incandescent. Therefore no one screwed it in.

 

Talk.Origins: We’ve observed all kinds of light bulbs in all kinds of sockets: flashlights, automobile headlights, Christmas tree lights, Las Vegas marquees. There is nothing special about this light bulb and this socket.

 

 

Royal Society: We oppose the misrepresentation of lighbulbs in sockets to promote a religious alternative. The evidence for light bulbs in sockets is overwhelming.

 

Richard Dawkins: None. Darwin made it possible to feel fulfilled sitting in the dark.

 

 

Richard Dawkins: To say that it took a Darwinist to do the screwing in of the lightbulb is to explain precisely nothing. The obvious question becomes: Who did the screwing to create the Darwinist screwer? And who did the screwing to create that screwer? There would have to be an infinite regress of screwers. And if you invoke some invisible, mystical Unscrewed Screwer (for which we have no credible evidence) to start the whole thing off, why not just say that the lightbulb screwed itself in and be done with it?

 

 

Eugenie Scott: No one doubts that the light bulb got screwed into the socket. The only debate is over the details.

 

Richard Dawkins: Evolution is the study of light bulbs that look as if they’ve been screwed into their sockets for a purpose, but haven't been.

 

Daniel Dennett: Perhaps we should keep fundamentalist light bulb inserters in cultural zoos so future generations can see how “in the dark” they really are!

 

Eric Pianka: If we could just produce a directed surge of destructive electricity which would burn out 90% of the worlds light bulbs thereby conserving energy in the long-run and…

 

…you… you errr… didn’t get that on tape, did you?

 

 

Judge Jones: The inanity of that question is breathtaking.

 

Sternberg at Smithsonian: I’m not allowed to question how the lightbulb is twisted into the socket now and they took the lightbulb, the switch, circuit and socket from my office.

 

 

SciAm Editorial: Two MIT researchers have announced the results of a breakthrough experiment, detailed in this month's cover story. To summarize briefly, they first turned on the overhead light in the kitchen. Then one of them donned mittens, got on a chair, and very slowly rotated the bulb in a counterclockwise direction, until it just turned off. The two then proceeded to jump up and down on the kitchen floor, in order to generate random displacement perturbations at the socket site. In an astonishingly short time, the bulb relit.

 

This experimental result powerfully establishes that lightbulbs are capable of screwing themselves into sockets with no intelligent guidance, demolishing the "one Darwinist" explanation of the creationists, which should now join epicycles, phlogiston, vital elan, and the luminiferous ether in the museum of discredited hypotheses. It is perhaps not too much of an exaggeration to say that Darwinists themselves are becoming wholly superfluous to proper scientific explanation. This important result is something to keep in mind as the nation-wide battle over school district science standards continues to rage.

 

Ken Ham: Were you there? Let's be honest, none of us were there. But I know someone who has always been there, who knows everything, and who does not lie. He tells us who screwed-in the light-bulb. Are you interested?

 

Michael Ruse: None. Light bulbs in sockets are a fact, fact, FACT!

 

Richard Lewontin: None. For we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to self-screwing lightbulbs. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a self-screwing explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to self-screwing causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce self-screwing explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that self-screwing is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Darwinist hand on the bulb.

 

 

Ken Miller: None, because the bulb could be used as a drinking glass, the filament could be a spring, the screw could be used as an archimedian pump and the contacts could be used to make a dandy tie-clip!

 

 

Stuart Kaufmann: None. Notice that both the screw pattern on the light bulb's base and the filament itself exhibit the form of a single helix, testifying to powerful, ubiquitous self-organizing properties in nature.

 

 

Now it's your turn to contribute. How many Darwinists does it take to screw-in a light bulb?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This does not belong in the Biology forum.

[YT2095]

and would you ALSO care to cite your Source, as this is Not your work!

[Sayonara]

My answer is "one, if there were still any around since screw lightbulbs were invented."

 

Not as mildly amusing, I know.

[john5746]

None. God will screw it in, if we are worthy.

[padren]

My answer is "one' date=' if there were still any around since screw lightbulbs were invented."

 

Not as mildly amusing, I know.[/quote']

 

Out of curiousity, have creationists taken to simply calling anyone who acknowledges evolutionary biology Darwinists?

 

As for the post...I am with Judge Jones on this one.

[Sayonara]

Out of curiousity, have creationists taken to simply calling anyone who acknowledges evolutionary biology Darwinists?

It seems like it. And all of the various branches of the evolutionary sciences are Darwinism.

[YT2095]

am I the only one that considers that Evolution and Creationism MAY NOT be Mutualy Exclusive?

 

I`de still like a Cite for the source However, this was Not the OPs original work.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://cartagodelenda.blogspot.com/2006/04/great-debate.html

[silkworm]

I'd like to add to the list.

 

ICR: Evolutionists claimed that they could ride a lightbulb to the moon during the Apollo Space Program. However, Tom Hanks refused citing that such an effort would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law that states bricks can't stack themselves. Hanks won an Oscar for his efforts.

 

Behe: The screw and the socket are irreducibly complex, and I can't figure this out. We shouldn't screw with stuff like this.

 

AiG: God seperated the night and the day, and a light bulb from an evolutionist will never light the world.

 

Ken Ham: Screwing in a lightbulb condones homosexuality, and is ripping this nation apart.

 

ICR: We're not denying that some lightbulbs change amongth themselves over time, different wattages, different sizes, different shapes. Even any evolutionist can see that. What we're saying is a lightbulb would not turn into a donut. That's hogwash. How would a lightbulb know a donut?

 

For more information about boobery and misrepresentations of science, please consult this link http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20337 and join the project of myself and many other SFNers to make organizations that endorse "A Question of Origins" take responsibility.

 

am I the only one that considers that Evolution and Creationism MAY NOT be Mutualy Exclusive?

 

I agree. Am I the only one who sees that science and religion have absolutely nothing to do with one another unless either is drastically misapplied?

[the tree]

It seems like it. And all of the various branches of the evolutionary sciences are Darwinism.

Ah! So that's what it means.

[YT2095]

I agree. Am I the only one who sees that science and religion have absolutely nothing to do with one another unless either is drastically misapplied?

it isn`t anything like that at all, that`s simply denying facts (and borderline Strwman tactics).

 

the facts are ther is plenty Evidence abundant to show that Evolution is not jut just Real, but has a profound impact upon our daily lives.

there is No evidence (Really) eitherway for creationism, and so it would be silly to say in Conclusive Factual Terms that it`s Not possible.

 

the real FACTS are that we Don`t Know!

 

I`m saying that if we WERE "Created" then Evolution is obviously Part of the "Design" and need NOT be mutualy exclusive.

 

ya know, Open Mind and all that

[Prime-Evil]

My guess is two.

One to mix the drinks and one to call the hired help.

 

We are talking Victorian England after all.

[padren]

am I the only one that considers that Evolution and Creationism MAY NOT be Mutualy Exclusive?

 

 

Perhaps the term "creationism" has been hijacked, but as far as I know it isn't the idea that God created the universe, its the idea that God created the universe in 7 days, according to Genesis.

 

I think the vast majority of people that believe that God created everything also believe evolution was the process by which we came to be.

 

Its the loud, cranky, dying breeds of fundamentalism that proclaim they are mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

PS:

 

How many creationists does it take to strawman evolution with a lightbulb analogy?

[bascule]

That's hilarious, just like a Ray Comfort video.

 

When we see a building' date=' we know it had a buildER

When we see a painting, we know it had a paintER

When we see creation, we know it had a creatOR

All we need are eyes that can see and a brain that works[/quote']

 

Evolution is disproven, QED, airtight reasoning!

 

I guess I had a different opinion on these kind of jokes before:

 

I heard a fundie joke to the effect of "How many evolutionists does it take to screw in a light bulb? None, given enough time the light bulb will screw itself in by chance!" which I thought was incredibly stupid but the fundies I saw telling it to each other cracked up at.

 

Reading http://cartagodelenda.blogspot.com/2006/04/great-debate.html however, I feel much the same way...