3 ms·

Just on the topic of silliest athiest argument, the silliest theist argument I've heard is that since Bananas are the perfect size and shape for the human hand

by rusk 9y ago

Just on the topic of silliest athiest argument, the silliest theist argument I've heard is that since Bananas are the perfect size and shape for the human hand they must have been designed by God for humans. Never mind the fact that actual natural bananas are nothing like that they're more akin to a small yellow pomegranite. Or that in some countries (Australia in my experience) you can get Bananas the size of cucumbers. Or even, that all commercial bananas are actually cloned (by way of transplanted cuttings) from a single Banana, which was probably selected "by man" based on various aesthetic, and practical parameters such as "it fitting perfectly in the hand".

rusk 9y ago
Sorry, on further recollection this was actually more specifically an argument against "evolution", so in a weird way they were right ...
coldtea 9y ago
>Just on the topic of silliest athiest argument, the silliest theist argument I've heard is that since Bananas are the perfect size and shape for the human hand they must have been designed by God for humans. Never mind the fact that actual natural bananas are nothing like that they're more akin to a small yellow pomegranite. That's not a real counter-argument. God, in all his wisdom, guided humans to breed the perfect-sized bananas we have today. So what the "natural bananas" are is irrelevant.
- rusk 9y ago
  I hear what you're saying, and your interpretation is more plausible. In fact it is an approach to reconciling creationism and scientific progress that's often employed, even recently by the Pope himself. However that is not how they were casting it. They were presenting the literalist more facile argument.
- comex 9y ago
  Well, the original argument wasn't just "according to our beliefs, God was involved in this"; it's implying that bananas would be unlikely to be the perfect size and shape for humans by chance, i.e. unless they were designed for that purpose. Which means there has to be a designer (who cared about humans), which for natural phenomena would have to be God, or at least some sort of god. That is, if you exclude evolution and other natural optimization processes; those are known to be able to simulate the appearance of intelligent design, but in theory could be excluded if there weren't a plausible mechanism for something to have evolved in response to humans, e.g. because they haven't been around for that long in geological terms. (Except that plenty of other animals with opposable fingers have existed for longer, but – details. I'm not saying the argument would actually be valid, even if bananas' current appearance were entirely natural.) On the other hand, artificial breeding provides an explanation that doesn't require God in any way, so it does invalidate the argument. The only way to salvage it is to say that God is responsible for it being possible to breed bananas into such a form, but that's obviously much weaker.

by rusk 9y ago

rusk 9y ago

Sorry, on further recollection this was actually more specifically an argument against "evolution", so in a weird way they were right ...

coldtea 9y ago

>Just on the topic of silliest athiest argument, the silliest theist argument I've heard is that since Bananas are the perfect size and shape for the human hand they must have been designed by God for humans. Never mind the fact that actual natural bananas are nothing like that they're more akin to a small yellow pomegranite. That's not a real counter-argument. God, in all his wisdom, guided humans to breed the perfect-sized bananas we have today. So what the "natural bananas" are is irrelevant.

rusk 9y ago
I hear what you're saying, and your interpretation is more plausible. In fact it is an approach to reconciling creationism and scientific progress that's often employed, even recently by the Pope himself. However that is not how they were casting it. They were presenting the literalist more facile argument.
comex 9y ago
Well, the original argument wasn't just "according to our beliefs, God was involved in this"; it's implying that bananas would be unlikely to be the perfect size and shape for humans by chance, i.e. unless they were designed for that purpose. Which means there has to be a designer (who cared about humans), which for natural phenomena would have to be God, or at least some sort of god. That is, if you exclude evolution and other natural optimization processes; those are known to be able to simulate the appearance of intelligent design, but in theory could be excluded if there weren't a plausible mechanism for something to have evolved in response to humans, e.g. because they haven't been around for that long in geological terms. (Except that plenty of other animals with opposable fingers have existed for longer, but – details. I'm not saying the argument would actually be valid, even if bananas' current appearance were entirely natural.) On the other hand, artificial breeding provides an explanation that doesn't require God in any way, so it does invalidate the argument. The only way to salvage it is to say that God is responsible for it being possible to breed bananas into such a form, but that's obviously much weaker.