The Principle of Comparative Difficulty Applies to Flat Earth

Michael Behe writes on the Principle of Comparative Difficulty: If a simple task is too complex, then a more difficult task is impossible. It’s a way to know when scientists are exaggerating. They make grandiose claims about what they can do, but fail to show evidence for their most basic claims.

If a high jumper can’t clear a five-foot bar, then he can’t clear a ten-foot bar.

If a swimmer can’t make it to the end of the pool, he can’t do 30 laps.

If scientists can’t give us a real picture of earth that’s not painted or Photoshopped, how could they give us pictures of distant planets?

If they can’t return to the moon, which is in our atmosphere, how can they go to Mars, which is supposedly 249 million miles away? (Nobody really went to the moon. But for the purposes of this post, we use their narrative).

Behe brings his Principle of Comparative Diffiiculty (PCD) to bear on Darwinism: If the theory of evolution can’t explain color patterns in animals, it certainly can’t explain how we went from from a one-celled organism to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. “If nutritionists can’t easily determine how one dietary factor affects health, evolutionary biologists can’t determine what affected the survival of long-dead animals,” he writes.

To use his analogy, a lawnmower is stored in a shed. The shed door is closed by a simple hook and eye latch. If evolution can’t explain the hook and eye latch, which only requires two parts working in tandem, it certainly can’t explain the lawnmower.

That’s how you know scientists are lying. Flat Earthers have been making memes on this concept for a while, noting that if we can’t get a cell signal in the foothills in 2019, how did they call the moon in 1969?

If a rocket can’t go faster than 500 mph to break the sound barrier, how will it reach speeds of 17,000 mph, or TEN TIMES as fast as a speeding bullet?

NASA’s astrophysicists give us images of distant stars, planets and galaxies, but they fail to explain the phenomena we observe right here on our stationary plane…why both “hemispheres” see the same side of the moon, for example, or how we see the same constellations for centuries on end.

Michael Behe is not a Flat Earther as far as I know. His focus is the failure of Darwinism to explain the complex machines found in nature. But his Principle of Comparative Difficulty applies perfectly to Flat Earth.

9 Comments

    1. Right? My prayer is for Behe, Stephen C. Meyer, and all the Intelligent Design guys to go Flat Earth. And Young Earth Creationists like Ken Ham. 🙂

  1. Satellite photos in the early to mid 60’s show the curvature of the earth and were taken years before CGI. Also amateurs with telescopes and P900’s show us images identical to NASA’s proving that despite your claim and belief, NASA is evidently not lying.

    1. Where are these published? I would love to investigate these statements. ; ) I cannot help being skeptical (you’ll have to pardon me). And I am not alone in my skepticism. There is very great basis for it, in that the waters of the earth, which cover over 70% of the earth, are, in calm weather, level and horizontal, and the mere fact that they represent over 70% of the earth, it is a physical impossibility for the earth to be spherically shaped.

      You can ignore this if you want and attempt to justify your beliefs through other means, but this pretty much seals the deal. It’s a very reasonable conclusion, reached through reasonable means.
      Science can try to tell us otherwise, but we know the truth based on actual observations and reasoning. And many experimental proofs have been made to the fact that the official curvature chart has no basis in reality. Too many objects great distances away have been observed through telescopic lenses that should never have been possible to see, and which, according to the official chart, should have been hundreds if not thousands of feet below the supposed “curve”. But the observable and repeatable facts about water always seeking its level, and large and small bodies of water presenting as perfectly horizontal, puts the lie to the claim of earth’s supposed curvature all by itself. Again, can you produce the supposed photo proof you mention? Don’t you find it curious that NASA has featured variable images of Earth that are anything but uniform? In its famous attempts to convey to the public images of the earth, there have been some notable variations in the size of the continents, though the size of the supposed “sphere” has remained consistent. This is, as any reasonable person would realize, a problem, wouldn’t you say?

      1. Well written blog post, and good commenting here so far. Water is the nail in the coffin. It’s called ‘sea level’ for a very specific reason. It’s not hard to fool people 40 years ago. They don’t need CGI to make a fake photo. You NEED to remember… if you have no means of reproducing the same experiment and getting the same results, then you MUST be skeptical of the information, because it’s too easily delivered and accepting it blindly is allowing yourself to be taken advantage of by “scientists”.

        All flat earth experiments can be repeated by anyone. That’s why WE all believe in them with such veracity. They’re not based on faith.

  2. So NASA took 6 maned landings to the moon. The last landing they stayed for 3 days. But not one time did they take the video camera they were using to film the astronaut’s doing stupid stuff on the moon. Take that camera and film the earth moving through space, like can be done from earth with the filming of moon. 6 times and not one single filming of earth.

    Why because no one can go to the moon, the highest a person can go up, i am guessing is 15 to 19 miles high.

    The list of excuses given as to why they did not film the earth from the moon by the ones who believe the lies (globe earth, outer space, men to the moon, gravity, etc…) are many and very lame on top of that.

Leave a Reply