Bananas- Explained!

I've debated about whether or not to post this for a little while, because on the surface it seems like I'm discussing religion. I'm not. This is about bad science, and why you should think about things before you let them alter what you believe. Without further ado:

The Atheist's Nightmare


Did you watch it? Good. Let's summarize- The banana is absolute proof of creationism because it is so clearly designed to be something for humans to eat. Among the many reasons are:
1. Fits well in human hand
2. Non-slip texture
3. Perfect Shape for human mouth
4. Angles toward mouth when held
5. Skin color indicates ripeness
6. Easy-open tab at top
7. Biodegradable wrapper

Before we proceed, I want to make it clear that I have no problem with religion. I think people should be allowed to hold whatever beliefs they want, and should be free to worship (or not worship) however they wish, as long as it's not hurting anyone else. I will never say that it is wrong to believe in God, but I think it's wrong to believe in God because of stupid crap like this.

This is an example of what I like to call "anti-science." The basic scientific method is a process in which you collect evidence through research or experiments, process it all, and develop a conclusion. Do we think this crazy Australian started with a clean slate, studied the banana with no preconceived notions, and eventually concluded that it had to have been created by the almighty? No- he already knew what he wanted his conclusion to be, so he looked exclusively for facts that could support his theory, without analyzing the big picture.

Once in church I heard a sermon about the "watch theory." In this video the guy gives a "soda can" theory, but it's basically the same thing. My pastor's message was that it was ridiculous to believe in the big bang theory- that a working universe could explode out of a drop of matter. He said that if you were walking in the woods and found a pocket watch, with all it's working springs and gears, would you think to yourself "Hey, this watch must have spontaneously exploded out of a spec of dirt?" Of course not. So, if there are watches, there must be a watch maker. In turn if there are universes, there must be a universe maker.

This is classic anti-science. It sounds good at first, but does not hold up to any kind of scientific scrutiny. I would explain further, but if you need it you're reading the wrong blog. The problem is that people like to look at a random series of events and believe that it's the only way things could've worked out. For instance, let's say you flip a coin 10 times and you get 10 heads. Some people would cry "See! There's only a 0.0977% chance that could have happened, so God must have done it." Others will say "Yes, but that's the same odds as the other 1023 patterns, and if we got one of those, life would still go on." Which is to say that if our planet had a boron atmosphere, boron-breathing life forms would probably develop and go on to marvel at how great is was that this all worked out.

So yeah, bananas are great, but that doesn't mean they were designed with humans in mind. What would that theory say about other fruit? How about pears? Those aren't mouth shaped! Or watermelon? Those are huge, heavy, slippery, full of seeds and messy! Does this mean they weren't meant for humans? How about coconuts? I can't get into one of those without a small array of power tools, and it's barely even worth the effort. What animal was meant to eat those? And let's face it- pomegranates are just a waste of time.

The theory that bananas = creation ranks somewhere slightly north of "Adam & Steve" but way below legitimate logic. If you want to argue that there's a divine creator, there are much better cases that aren't confined to the produce section.

Bonus points for people who noticed that was Kirk Cameron.