Argument from banana

Kevin Schnitzius pointed me to this video, which has been around for a while but was recently mentioned by the Disgruntled Chemist. Skip to about the two-minute mark to get some deep insight into the creationist mindset, which Tara from Aetiology (which has since moved) accurately dubbed the “argument from banana.”

Argument from banana
You really do need to see the video, but I’ll spill the beans for the impatient: bananas are the quintessentially designed object. Not only do they fit snugly into a human hand, they even have ridges to allow for a tighter grip, a built-in color-coding that lets us know when they’re ripe, and — my favorite — a convenient pull-tab at the top for easy peeling! What better proof for the existence of God could one need?

I do wonder what they make of the Durian. Perhaps the Designer has a sense of humor?

Update: If you want to know more (perhaps your faith in naturalism has been shaken?), the video comes from a series called The Way of the Master, featuring Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. It purportedly shows in 70 countries, and has been awarded honors by the National Religious Broadcasters association.

66 Comments

66 thoughts on “Argument from banana”

  1. Well Hiranya, theists generally don’t think they’re just extrapolating. They think they’re following evidence–mostly scriptural (e.g. Mark writes about miracles he eyewitnessed; if you trust him then the miracles actually happened), but also personal (the change in their life when they began to believe, generally) and anecdotal (similar stories about others).

  2. Sean: I read your paper, and enjoyed it. The carefulness with which you address these often-muddled issues is highly commendable and thoroughly refreshing. At the risk of provoking a further paper, however, I’d like to ask question: what does the materialist have to say about apparent free will? You carefully avoided this topic, even though human agency is arguably the leading candidate for a “class of phenomina that act without regard to any patterns we can discern”. Would you share your thoughts on this? I promise I won’t argue with you =)

    -Sam

  3. I’ve never seen any human behavior that was inconsistent with the Standard Model of particle physics, so I’m not sure what there is to explain. Of course we’d like to understand how complex behavior arises from simple underlying rules, but the same could be said for hurricanes or star formation. We’re not all that special.

  4. I wonder how long it will be before an ecological creationist explains how perfectly arranged is the amount of oil in the world that it will run out just this side of the tipping point into ecological catastrophe.

  5. David Corfield – talk about hitting the proverbial nail on the head… thanks for bringing up this most insightful comment!

  6. Sam Gralla – thanks, that’s interesting. So you think that theists adopt this world view out of emotional, subjective considerations (I am not saying this is an invalid choice – I have nothing against anyone’s spiritual beliefs unless they try to force it down the throats of anyone not of the same belief system; but arguments like this are not something that’s subject to logical, empirical analysis). This doesn’t explain people like the banana guy though, who appear to find empirical “evidence” for their worldview by pseudoscientific claims about the physical world. i.e. there appears to be a need in these people to see empirical evidence for their beliefs in the physical world, but not a critical faculty to examine that evidence in the manner of the scientific method. I find this very hard to understand.

  7. It is very hard to examine one’s own consciousness/awareness in a scientific manner.

    Also I’m not sure whether expecting there to be a state called nirvana or moksha is any less a leap of faith than expecting there to be a God.

  8. All silliness aside, this video did inspire me to figure out for myself exactly where this arguement falls apart, not that it takes a genius or even a moron to see through the B.S.

    The problem is in equating the world as a finished product of some creator (a building, a soda can, etc) instead of a process (Nature) that stretches infinately in both directions. Creationists don’t see this as a problem because of course to them there was ta-dah! CREATION! Bam, there, its done, God’s going to get some lunch and then take a dump.

  9. Oh, and Im not sure, but Im willing to bet that that banana he was holding has been subject to its own fair share of genetic engineering of some sort. The prospects for irony compel me to search….

    a quick search does not reveal much, but as a domesticated plant the arguement that God created the banana in its pure perfection as it is now is not true.

  10. Well, that’s how we know we have souls and they don’t. They’re just that dumb. I bet they drink coke by puncturing the side of the can with their anuses!

  11. Pingback: Positive Liberty » Blog Archive » Science and Religion

  12. I beleive in a creator, it’s the Unicorn, Or is it HobGoblins?, or is it the Werewolf.

    You can’t PROVE that Werewolf dosent exists. You can only say that you DONT KNOW if he exists or not.

    Well, I have a book that said Werewolf DOES exists, and he died from a sliver bullet for ME!

    And I can feel the Werewolf in my heart, I let him in my life and I pray to him daily. I dont want to live in a world without Werewolf.

    Infact – I have an EQUAL amount of proof for his existence as Christians do for Jesus.

    ACCEPT Unicorn..er I mean Zeus..Ooops.. I mean Werewolf, he is the true savior!!!!

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top