Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Screwing in a Light Bulb
The Great Debate: How many Darwinists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Charles Darwin: None. But if it could be demonstrated that the bulb entered the socket without a series of gradual, clockwise turns, my theory would absolutely break down.
Generic 1: None. Time and chance are sufficient. Eventually it is inevitable that the bulb will be in the socket. Say, in a billion years.
Generic 2: 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.
Generic 3: None. In fact, you don't even need a new light bulb or a socket to put it in. Given enough time, in a never-ending struggle for survival of the fittest, dead materials and minerals will eventually struggle to form the metal, glass, and wire. A socket will eventually form from random juggling of the metal, glass, and wire. Ultra-violet light and other raw energies in nature will cause the bulb to float to the ceiling and screw itself in!
Internet Infidels: First answer this: How many priests did it take to burn Galileo at the stake? Huh?!?
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): None! We have separation of church and state in this country.
Flying Spaghetti Monster: Two. But don?t ask me how they got in there. Oh, ?Darwinists?? I thought you said fruit flies.
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. The bulb jumped into the socket when no one was looking. Gradually.
Eugenie Scott (National Center for Science Education): None. To say a Darwinist did it is not a scientific explanation.
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.
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!
Richard Dawkins (again): To say that it took a Darwinist to do the screwing in of the light bulb 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 light bulb screwed itself in and be done with it?
Philip Johnson: One.
Michael Behe: One.
Stephen Meyer: One.
William Dembski: One.
Guillermo Gonzalez: One. 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?
Nadeem: One Darwinist, who has been intelligently designed. If I make the erroneous assumption for a moment that a Darwinist could have formed by natural and chance-based processes of evolution, then even an infinite number of evolved Darwinists cannot screw in a light bulb.
Charles Darwin: None. But if it could be demonstrated that the bulb entered the socket without a series of gradual, clockwise turns, my theory would absolutely break down.
Generic 1: None. Time and chance are sufficient. Eventually it is inevitable that the bulb will be in the socket. Say, in a billion years.
Generic 2: 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.
Generic 3: None. In fact, you don't even need a new light bulb or a socket to put it in. Given enough time, in a never-ending struggle for survival of the fittest, dead materials and minerals will eventually struggle to form the metal, glass, and wire. A socket will eventually form from random juggling of the metal, glass, and wire. Ultra-violet light and other raw energies in nature will cause the bulb to float to the ceiling and screw itself in!
Internet Infidels: First answer this: How many priests did it take to burn Galileo at the stake? Huh?!?
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): None! We have separation of church and state in this country.
Flying Spaghetti Monster: Two. But don?t ask me how they got in there. Oh, ?Darwinists?? I thought you said fruit flies.
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. The bulb jumped into the socket when no one was looking. Gradually.
Eugenie Scott (National Center for Science Education): None. To say a Darwinist did it is not a scientific explanation.
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.
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!
Richard Dawkins (again): To say that it took a Darwinist to do the screwing in of the light bulb 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 light bulb screwed itself in and be done with it?
Philip Johnson: One.
Michael Behe: One.
Stephen Meyer: One.
William Dembski: One.
Guillermo Gonzalez: One. 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?
Nadeem: One Darwinist, who has been intelligently designed. If I make the erroneous assumption for a moment that a Darwinist could have formed by natural and chance-based processes of evolution, then even an infinite number of evolved Darwinists cannot screw in a light bulb.