Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

The problem is that creationism is not a serious alternative to evolution as an explanation for everything. Evolution's critics universally seem to be some combination of deceitful and grossly misinformed. The facts they cite are bluntly wrong.


There is a way to know at this time, and the way to know is because that shift already freaking happened. You apparently missed the boat by about a century.

I disagree. Just for fun I decided to check out the talkorigins website, particularly the page on quote-mining. I do agree that it's wrong to take quotes out of context, and it is a disturbingly common practice even for Bible opponents to take scripture out of context to prove one point or another. And don't even get me started on emerging "churches" that are Christian in name only who use Biblical text to justify doing whatever it is they feel like doing.

But after reading some of the quote-mining examples, the quotes and the original context, I started getting a headache. At first glance, MOST of what I saw just seemed like writers contradicting themselves. Getting a cup of coffee and trying to read it again, I recognized that the apparent contradictions as what they most often really are: scientists just being good scientists and trying to be thorough in weighing the evidence. I think the biggest problem I had, though, was that the overall impression is that the discussions are in general optimistic in favor of evolution from the outset, predicting that THIS thing will be found or THAT thing will be found, and so on. To borrow a Biblical phrase, "Seek and ye shall find." It never ceases to be true, and the wisdom of that statement is in the bias of the seeker. "Bias" in the scientific discussions seems to me tantamount to an expletive. I've never really understood why that is, because I don't see it as necessarily being a bad thing. It seems to me that it takes some level of bias to begin with to express any given viewpoint--if you're inclined to believe evolution to begin with, regardless of how you become persuaded to it, all following evidence only serves in its favor. Why WOULD you be interested in alternatives?

I think the deceitful and grossly misinformed might have to do with the often emotional tendencies of most people in general who disagree with the view of evolution, particularly if they feel that religion is under attack. While perusing talkorigins, I found this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH101.html If you look at that, check out point #2: Inerrancy is a contempt that breeds hate. The first time I read that, my immediate thought is that whoever came up with that idea does NOT have a very good understanding of the Bible, nor do I or even most of my Christian friends harbor hateful or superior feelings towards others, even unbelievers or other religions, and I could even quote scripture in proper context that would support my view (and that of the Biblically educated mainstream, people who KNOW the Bible). But the second time I read it, I figured out that point was not directed towards me, the Bible, or my friends. It was directed towards people who, to use your words, are "deceitful and grossly misinformed." As I see it, there are two types of people here that come "in the name of God": The naïve person who is relatively immature in the faith, is not completely versed in the basic tenets of Christianity (those things we all hold in common, not referring to denominational specifics), and not well-read in scripture. The other type of person is the someone with an agenda which he uses the Bible out of context to achieve, maybe even taking in the first type. That particular statement in opposition to the inerrancy of the Bible argument is a charge against those people who are guilty of gross misbehavior because they don't KNOW what they're talking about (all caps because the kind of knowledge I'm talking about has to do with actual life experience and application of scripture, not just a casual reading of it and spouting out what it says). But to use the behavior of some people (who don't know what they're talking about) to attack the inerrancy of the Bible is unjustified.

Let me make it a little more personal to what we're talking about here: One idea of Nazism was to help evolution along by unifying and solidifying the Arian race. To that end, they culled certain undesirables among themselves (their own people, I'm not talking about the Jews and Slavic peoples). If natural selection is the means to which a superior, pure, advanced race is achieved, a triumph of humanity, then what is morally wrong with culling? Happens all the time in animal husbandry. But the problem is, and I'm sure most here will agree with me on this, that euthanasia and eugenics are morally despicable practices. Now, follow through with the logic here: Eugenics is evil. Eugenics is justified by the theory of evolution as interpreted by Nazi German domestic policy. Therefore, evolution is evil.

Do you see what is wrong with that line of thinking? If you're a proponent of evolution, you ought to be immediately offended by that argument. In principle, however, it is no different than that particular attack on Biblical inerrancy I just mentioned.

Likewise, you have to understand while you believe that creationists are deceitful and grossly misinformed, a creationist might view you the same way, as deceitful and grossly misinformed yourself. To say that creationism doesn't make any sense is to misunderstand it. Same thing with evolution. I understand it. That doesn't mean I agree with it or believe it, but I rattled off all the same answers in my biology and physiology classes as anyone else back in the day. Obviously I graduated high school, because those classes were required, and I went on to earn a master's degree and even teach high school kids for a short period of time--so I'm not COMPLETELY stupid. That some well-informed individuals, with no less access to information than you or I, STILL somehow manage to hold onto creationism within their faith should speak volumes as to how relevant that view of origins remains.

Ultimately, that creationism is not a serious alternative is not really a problem. If one believes in the God of the Bible, then evolution is not a serious alternative to special creation.

The science of genetics is and will remain a better alternative than religious superstition. I assume you are aware that your religious beliefs are wishful thinking and nonsense rolled into a package that the less than sharp minded find attractive.

ruveyn

Natural selection is not the means to a superior creature.

Evolution is the inadvertent and unavoidable difference in genetics between parent and child. It can be a copying problem, a mutation from chemical or radiation or just unusual conditions in the womb which cause genetic expression to vary.

All creatures vary from their parents and are not perfect combinations of the two. We are all mutants. We all have mutations.

Natural selection is simply that these variations prevent a select few from getting to reproduce. That might mean that they die young, or it might mean that they are not appealing to the opposite sex for various reasons. These mutants are selected against. The rest of the population(mutants all), do have babies and pass their mutations on.

Regardless of what the Nazis thought, it is a mistake to think of beneficial mutations. There are bad mutations and mutations that do not matter at all. In fact, individual bad mutations are not usually deal breakers either(in the carnal sense). It is only when an individual has a sizable accumulation of mutations that their differences inhibit reproductive chances.

It is this gradual accumulation of negligible mutations which leads to speciation. In fact, nature selects against all creatures. We'll all die. Its just that if you have kids before that happens, it doesnt matter. Your imperfect genes get passed on. This is why the Jewish Tay-Sachs disease, Sickle Cell Anemia and Diabetes can persist.

There is no goal to evolution, nor any criteria to selection except "did you reproduce in time?" There is only the enduring legacy of your parents genes.

Well, it is very much true. Creationism isn't a serious alternative. It is a conservative Christian ghetto belief, and even the much milder Intelligent Design movement was shut down in court for lacking scientific foundations, and it is much more moderate. I mean, if a US court has to come in and say that your "science" is BS, then it isn't a serious alternative to the mainstream, and not even really science.


Ok, but saying a person is "taking quotes out of context" still isn't a way to combat any use of a scripture in a way you dislike, nor is it *that* relevant when scripture is saying something monstrous. (Deut 28:16-68 ) That being said, there are atheist Bible scholars and atheists who are expert enough to be taken seriously who quote scripture to make their points.


You wouldn't be, particularly given that no alternative actually makes sense. AngelRho, creationism used to be popular and the only acceptable belief, but evolutionary theories started popping up, and out of these evolutionary theories, Evolution won so much that nobody really sees much reason to question its dominance.

I mean, this isn't an issue of "seek and ye shall find", because nobody really sees the need to defend evolution at this point. The idea is all but proven, and the opponents are all but entirely dead.

Bias isn't the real issue, but rather intellectual dishonesty. Karl Popper dealt with issues of bias and his basic view was that people are theorizers, not just buckets to dump facts into, and for this reason nobody can say they have that "neutral" perspective. They can say that they are correct perhaps, but not neutral.


Well, technically, point 2 isn't even a good argument. It is appealing to the consequence of something to argue the truth of something.


I'm offended by any argument that is that stupid. You're right, it is no different than the attack on Biblical inerrancy mentioned earlier, and both arguments are crap.


Ok, good for them, but they're still wrong.


No, it really isn't, actually. If one holds to an obviously errant Bible, which many scholars do, then a creationism requiring an inerrant Bible actually makes no sense.

I mean, I suppose you could ducttape over all of the flaws with enough "God did it's" but really, the idea has been rejected with good reason and it doesn't make any sense for multiple reasons: 1) Because the Bible really doesn't make any sense. Readers try to make it make sense, but the problems are insoluble. 2) Because it is at variance with what we know to a degree that isn't tolerable, just like earlier spontaneous generation theories are intolerable given Pasteur's discovery.


No, it really doesn't. You have to recognize that people cling to their conspiracy theories dogmatically, so a person being able to hold onto something does not mean that it is intellectually valid. Hell, I am my own best example given that like I've said in the past, I was a conservative Christian for a period of time, but now reject the idea as nonsense. Now, we can quibble about details, but I am certainly more theologically informed than many people.


Umm..... you do realize that even some conservative scholars consider evolution correct, don't you?

Even further, an intellectual game that always goes back to "I BELIEVE!! !! !" can't be honest. Just because you were brainwashed into believing the Bible/Koran/Mein Kampf/the complete works of Marquis de Sade does not mean that you get a free pass to stop being intellectually honest.

As it stands, I am tired of seeing this cult. I hate the intellectual dishonesty that results from people worshiping this poorly written book. I hate the hypocrisy that it seems most Christians engage in. I hate the self-righteousness of the "blessed". I hate the nonsense. Maybe this is just "the devil corrupting me and turning me against God's word", but I can't help but think that this is like an infection rather than a sign of the holiness of the world.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 27 May 2010, 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

My apologies for chopping up your quote--I just wanted to say that on this we agree. I mean, if we're just talking evolution, that much is true. I also don't mean to throw out any red herrings. From a Nazi perspective, you could say that "Man" himself is a part of nature and uses his superior knowledge to accelerate evolutionary process. My whole point was just that the Nazi's had just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

Of course, it was a Gestalt ideology. Here you can have wholly secular science married with their "brand" of Christianity married to politics. We don't care what you believe as long as you don't offend the party! Even now, the intrusion of one upon another is dangerous. Personally, I don't see what the fate of the dinosaurs really has to do with us right this minute. I do, however, understand how understanding your own genetic makeup might lead you to choose a partner with whom you'd prefer to have children with. Oddly enough, my wife and I have a lot of features in common, like dark hair, but both our children are blonde! So maybe our children only inherited our GOOD traits.

No offense taken.



Not a heck of a lot, right?

Incidently, just incidently, as a point of interest, we(as mammals) are assumed to come not from the dinos but from the Gorgonopsia family, which predated the real dinosaurs. Sorry, They are an aspie interest of mine. I'll shut up.


There is that of course. We are both driven to select complimentary partners, and we seek the same rationally. Some times this is at odds.



Good being in the eye of the beholder in this case. I dont think there is anything intrinsically beneficial to blond hair. It is only positive in complement with your trait of finding blond hair pleasing. Can I go on a limb here and assume that both you and your wife had fair hair when you were younger?

God created evolution.

AngelRho: I think I can reply to some of that evidence you've provided. However before I do, I want to reply to the following paragraph:

There is no single theory or scientific explanation that seeks to explain everything. It is when we start putting them together that we start getting a picture of reality and the world around us. Given that evolution was only designed to explain the proliferation of life, however the first cell got here is therefore not essential to evolution because it would not involve that proliferation. Furthermore, understanding life's origin is not necessary for understanding the proliferation of life. I don't understand why you think it's so wrong to have two separate theories for the proliferation and the origin of life.



A while ago there was a thread about abiogenesis on this forum. It started with stating the study mentioned in the following article:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Although we still don't know everything, they seem to be getting closer to answering that question. Also, just because we don't know the answer to something doesn't mean there isn't one.



Not necessarily. That's only if you don't take into account the fact that different chemical reactions could happen simultaneously, which would shorten that time scale considerably.



That's not really an indication of the age of the Earth, but rather has to do with the origin of the moon. The main theory regarding the moons origin is that at one time, early in it's history, another smaller proto-planet collided or impacted the proto-Earth, causing magma to be ejected into space. This ring of magma eventually coalesced into an orbiting body and cooled to become the moon. Since that time, angular momentum has been continuously transferred from the Earth to the moon causing the moon move away from us and by the law of conservation of angular momentum, this also causes the rotation of the Earth to slow. At any rate, this theory would suggest that the moon was once part of the Earth.



Human population hasn't always increased at the rate. In prehistoric times, birth rate and death rate were close enough that population was more or less even, with maybe a few spikes here and there. There's also the case that population may have increased and declined at some points. Look at the last subsection of the following Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

Also, look at the following graph that was linked to on that page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_%28lin-log_scale%29.png



This slowing down is due to the transfer of angular momentum from the Earth to the moon. With regards to there being a point in time when life would be impossible on Earth due to a Coriolis force, do you have a calculation to show when this point would of been? That argument would be more convincing if you did.



No, nobody has ignored any facts. They have tried to come up with explanations for those facts. I need to look up some of those other things you've mentioned but I'm sure there are explanations to those as well.

Last edited by Jono on 27 May 2010, 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I've already posted some sources.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp2806749.html#2806749

You should research more if you are interested, and the sources I used also cite their own sources, so hopefully that could help you somewhat as well. (maybe not, as the sources are academic and probably hard to get ahold of, and/or read)

Hardly, as the Nazis had a pedestrian understanding of evolution at best. This is as valid as saying "the Crusades were bad, the crusades were justified by Christianity as interpreted by medieval leaders, therefore Christianity is bad." Both arguments are, of course, nonsense.


The difference would be that they're wrong. I'm a biologist.


Quite the opposite. To understand it is to realize it makes no sense.


Oh please, you took high school biology and think that makes you an expert on evolution? Give me a break.

I know plenty of people who have earned master's degrees and taught high school students while still being of astonishingly poor intelligence.


No, it speaks volumes to the ability of people to cling to ridiculous beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. And further, most of those people really are not at all informed. I mean, the major opponents of evolution, when questioned, have simply displayed a profound ignorance of the science. The Intelligent Design movement had their day in court, and a conservative, Christian, Bush-appointed judge was thoroughly disgusted with their idiocy by the end of it.

LOL

Hey, don't worry about it too terribly much--it's not that big a deal. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but it's draining trying to keep up with evidentiary arguments. Christians have been doing this for probably at least a thousand years by now. I was simply asked for evidence and I provided what I could come up with. The thing here is that just as you can explain things as being something other than creation, other things can be explained as other than evolution.

I can't remember exactly where I got that information, but I'm not quite THAT creative enough to fabricate it. You can try this one: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/

A convenient way to avoid dealing with the fact that the evidence does not support your stance.

No, it's not avoiding anything. I've just said all I have to say on the matter.

" It may be that man hunted dinosaurs to extinction."

" Many of the great sea and land monsters went extinct in a global flood about 4400 years ago."

"The Flood (a.k.a. Noah's Flood) is the worldwide cataclysmic event that utterly devastated the earth sometime between 2,000 and 3,000 BC. "

Well, then, I guess burn the history books. Although, I suppose the creation story wins out on coolness, as our ancestors fought dinosaurs and WON!

Ok, I'll put this straight up. The flood story makes no historical sense. I mean.... like, we have civilizations that are dated back before then, and believed to be ongoing during that period of time. Just getting the history even close to sensible has to be mental suicide, as we have to assume that these people screwed like rabbits, and ran really quickly out of the middle east to get to Africa, Asia, and Europe to do things that archaeologists would later discover there. Even swimming to North America as well. I mean, dear goodness, I've heard that Ray Comfort posits that kangaroos crossed ice bridges to get to Australia... but.... this is utterly f*****g ridiculous. Like, I understand that miracles can be invoked, and things hand-waved around like that, but seriously, this is intellectual suicide. You can even hear the screams of the brain cells, as the treachery of their fellows forces them to take their lives in shame.

It's not necessary to throw out history. Dinosaurs were not invincible and impervious to bullets like Jurassic Park portrayed, but just creatures. There are some possible accounts of humans killing dinosaurs. I've only saved two on my facebook notes, but here's one that I find particularly cool because the Romans did the job while fighting the Punic War:

"Now while Regulus was encamped beside the Bagradas river, there appeared a serpent of huge bulk, the length of which is said to have been one hundred and twenty feet (for its slough was carried to Rome for exhibition), and the rest of its body corresponded in size. It destroyed many of the soldiers who approached it and some also who were drinking from the river. Regulus overcame it with a crowd of soldiers and with catapults.

After thus destroying it, he gave battle by night to Hamilcar, who was encamped upon a high, wooded spot; and he slew many in their beds as well as many who had been aroused. Any who escaped fell in with the Romans guarding the roads and perished. In this way a large part of the Carthaginians was destroyed and many of their cities were going over to the Romans. "

Dio Cassius, Roman History, Book 11.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... o/11*.html