I never heard of Joshua Feuerstein before a couple weeks ago, when the BBC asked my opinion of his viral video. I contributed my bit to their trending News Magazine, but the video below only used a few seconds of that 30 minute interview.
Before they posted this video, I got an email apologizing that something had happened to their recording, such that much of the audio was muffled. I don’t think I should make another video about this, but I do want to post the missing bits of what I told the BBC.
Feuerstein opens his video repeating the 11th foundational falsehood of creationism, saying that evolution has never been observed. Even mAcroevolution has been directly observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab, and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field.
He then moves to the 15th foundational falsehood of creationism, saying that evolution is ‘just’ a theory, like atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, relativity, or the theory of gravity. A ‘theory’ is a body of verifiable facts, testable hypotheses, and natural laws within a given field of study. That field of study *is* the theory. Creationism has no theory, because they have no hypotheses, or natural laws. There’s no body of knowledge there, because there is no part of creationism that anyone can actually show to be true -the way we can with evolution.
Then he jumps onto the 6th FFoC, where ‘evolution’ somehow has to account for the origin of life, the universe, and everything. Actually evolution is only a theory of biodiversity and is limited to population genetics.
Then he evokes the power of will -as if that had anything to do with any aspect of evolution; as if that wasn’t a facet of his own religion instead, wherein Jesus says that anyone who has faith can will mountains to leap into the sea. “Mind over matter” is an aspect of religious faith, not facts like the study of evolution is.
Then he moves onto the 7th FFoC, arguing that evolution is an ‘accident’. In that he misquotes thermodynamics, showing that he doesn’t know any more about that than he doesn’t know about anything else. He has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about.
Laughably, he even evokes Bill O’Reilly’s most embarrassing gaff, “Tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication; you can’t explain that”. It was that line of idiocy with David Silverman on the show that sparked Silverman’s WTF meme.
Then he moves onto Fred Hoyle’s ‘tornado in the junkyard’ fallacy, only he changed the Boeng 747 to a red Lamborghini.
Finally, he wants to believe something that has already been disproved in a court of law a decade ago, and he wants that taught in school anyway, and he wants to expose his ignorance of that loudly and proudly.
I don’t know how he could possibly be sincere. How could anyone still be that grossly misinformed once they’re immersed in this discussion? Whenever someone is THAT dumb, they’re likely to be poe. But this guy appears to be making a living at it, and is getting famous with it, and that is another reason to doubt that he would ever concede any of his many mistakes here. Accuracy and accountability simply do not matter to professional creationists. But I’m least happy that WIldwood Claire awarded him the title of ‘dim bulb of the week’.
10 thoughts on “Feuerstein’s folly”
He is an astoundingly ignorant douchenozzle. He also looks like a Fred Durst wannabe from about 1998, which earns him zero points, and has this hip-hop cool-youth-preacher cadence which is actually more annoying than both the real Fred and the bullshit he fills that car with.
Another creationist arguing against a strawman version of evolution which he understands poorly but he can’t even find good arguments against it.
When started with “tide comes in, tide goes out”, I couldn’t watch past that… it really is just another mishmash of creationist tropes.
The positive thing about this “creationist viral social media” (do we even have to say “viral” anymore? Everyone knows that’s how it spreads in general except it’s more like a neural signal) is that all those people who go to an idiot of this guy’s calliber for their info will look very stupid down the line and will all have access to videos of people debunking him.
I only saw that guy’s video because my coworker was watching it on his cell in my car. I told him if he wanted to really know why I was groaning in pain at literally every sentence, he needed to watch Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series. Nice to know there’s now a specific rebuttal I can point him at.
This tool popped up on Facebook a few weeks ago. I immediately unfriended everyone who reposted, save those who did so as a sign of mockery.
I have a visceral reaction to certain levels of stupid, so I didn’t even make it a third of the way through his video.
These people have very specific talking points, and they usually can’t answer questions because deviating from the script would require actual thought rather than regurgitation.
They won’t learn because that would lead them to a conclusion they won’t accept.
new creationists trying to make a name for themselves. the next kent hovind
I was suggested this website by my cousin. I’m
not sure whether this post is written by him as nobody else know such detailed about my
trouble. You are wonderful! Thanks!
Feel free to surf to my webpage Topher Di Maggio (Finley)
Now I don’t know which is more revolting, you or the Creationist. I’m so confused.