The Word on Creationism

The Word is "Lie"

Published on June 16, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.

For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)

But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

Comments (Page 11)

151

Leauki

on Jun 30, 2008

But what DO atheists believe? I can make an educated guess. We believe that 2+2=4 because we can demonstrate it. We believe in 1=1.

1. Atheists believe all sorts of things, just not in a god or gods. Many atheists believe in aliens or astrology or spirits. Not believing in gods (a-theist) doesn't make a person more or less rational.

2. Theists can also make educated guesses.

3. I don't so much believe as I know that 2+2=4, because I believe in the mathematical axioms that the statement is based on.

4. I believe in 1=1 because I believe in certain mathematical axioms that are, like belief in G-d, useful tools in the real world (but cannot be proven).

Mathematics is a bad example for "real life", because mathematics isn't. Mathematics is a belief system used as a tool.

152

Leauki

on Jun 30, 2008

The content of that email, by the way, is fictional.

I am not surprised.

ATHEIST'S HOLIDAY

Anyway, April 1st is, I believe, a holiday set up by Christians in Europe to make fun of the remaining pagans (at least that's one theory for the holiday).

Atheist holidays include July 4th ("Independence Day") and Labour Day.

Jewish holidays are usually celebrated by atheist Jews as well, since they often commemorate historic events rather than specific religious beliefs (Jerusalem Day, Hanukkah, Purim). Some Jewish holidays are religious (Pesach, Sukkot, Yom Kippur). Others are mixed bags (New Year).

(Non-religious holidays are those that remain worthy of celebration on their own merits even if all faith is rejected. Rejecting Jewish faith would, for example, not diminish the historical fact of Jewish survival celebrated by Purim and Hanukkah.)

Theists also celebrate atheist holidays (like Independence Day) and Atheists celebrate holidays that are theist but are not understood as such (Christian New Year, i.e. the feast of St. Sylvester or what his name was).

I assume some atheists that believe in aliens also have "Space Day" or something like that. Theists who believe in aliens would probably join them in celebration.

At the end it turns out that the more you believe in, the more you can celebrate.

on Jun 30, 2008

on Jun 30, 2008

We already had that guy.

I commented on him before. Don't think I could find the comment now. Look for it?

155

Leauki

on Jun 30, 2008

For those still interested in the actual subject, here is a site that debunks pretty much every single position Creationists come up with:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

156

stubbyfinger

on Jun 30, 2008

Same guy different video.

I posted it because there’s a reference to giving the atheist a holiday.

157

lulapilgrim

on Jun 30, 2008

For those still interested in the actual subject, here is a site that debunks pretty much every single position Creationists come up with:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

All that we can rightfully point to is change within species. As to change across species, they're dreaming Leauki. Snoresville!

"When men cling to an outworn theory with no supporting evidence, the problem is within the mind. They are entrenched dogmatists, fearful to consider alternative facts and conclusions. When the most learned evolutionists can give neither the how nor the why, the marvels seem to show that adaption is inexplicable. This is a strange situation, only partly ascribable to the rather unscientific conviction that evidence will be found in the future. It is due to a psychological quirk."----- Norman MacBeth, Darwin Retried, 1971.

158

lulapilgrim

on Jun 30, 2008

Leauki,

Post #151 is quite insightful. Thanks.

1. Atheists believe all sorts of things,

Of course Atheists believe in things. Atheism is more a denial of the ultimate Cause of things including the law of our being.

The Atheist and the mind of a child.

Why is it dark?
Because the sun sets.
Why does the sun set?
Because the earth moves around it.
Why does the earth move around it?
Because of gravity.
What's gravity?
It's a law of nature.
Where does the law of nature come from?
Child, don't ask so many questions.

159

Leauki

on Jul 01, 2008

All that we can rightfully point to is change within species. As to change across species, they're dreaming Leauki. Snoresville!

Again, they have observed, in the lab, how two breeds of fruitflies became two species of fruitflies.

They have also observed, in the lab, how two breeds of bacteria evolved into two different species of bacteria with two different ways of "eating".

It takes longer with mammals, but it was the equivalent of "redesigning" the way our whole digestive system works.

160

warreni

on Jul 01, 2008

All that we can rightfully point to is change within species. As to change across species, they're dreaming Leauki. Snoresville!Again, they have observed, in the lab, how two breeds of fruitflies became two species of fruitflies.They have also observed, in the lab, how two breeds of bacteria evolved into two different species of bacteria with two different ways of "eating".It takes longer with mammals, but it was the equivalent of "redesigning" the way our whole digestive system works.

Leauki,

Your examples are both reasonable and relevant, but I fear you're wasting your time. The only evidence lula is willing to accept is if we could demonstrate a Goldschmidt-esque "hopeful monster" in the laboratory for her to see (i.e., induce a mutational event that would turn a gorilla into a man-like creature or a fish into a turtle-like creature). It doesn't matter that this notion is based on an erroneous understanding of how the evolutionary process works; as long as creationists can cling to this and other long-discredited ideas, they can continue to deny the fact of evolution.

161

Leauki

on Jul 01, 2008

Your examples are both reasonable and relevant, but I fear you're wasting your time.

Thanks. But I'm afraid you misunderstood what my goal was.

I know I cannot convince Creationists. To understand evolution, one has to read books about it or do research; and they won't. But I am not trying to convince Creationists of the wisdom of embracing evolution.

I am trying to convince atheists and secular individuals that religion doesn't make one irrational and that a belief in G-d doesn't mean rejecting scientific research. I am also trying to make the point that to understand biology and religion, one has to read up on both.

162

warreni

on Jul 01, 2008

I am trying to convince atheists and secular individuals that religion doesn't make one irrational and that a belief in G-d doesn't mean rejecting scientific research. I am also trying to make the point that to understand biology and religion, one has to read up on both.

You're right. I did misunderstand, but now I see.

I think Richard Dawkins would disagree with your premise that religion and science are fundamentally compatible. He never bought into Gould's concept (although not really something that originated with SJG) of "non-overlapping magisteria." (Gould was the first to give this concept that particular name, what my grandfather would have called a "ten-dollar word.") I haven't read The God Delusion, but I will have to do so in the near future.

Unless Dawkins has persuasive arguments that convince me otherwise, however, I've never really believed that science and religion have to be incompatible. I have a broad and shallow knowledge of religious beliefs and a deep and somewhat narrow knowledge of scientific principles and practices. To me, the two areas ask different questions and seek different answers. Both are concerned with mysteries that the other cannot address within its given context and utilizing its chosen methods. I expect most reasonable people would agree with this position.

I would say that religious belief actually is inherently irrational--specifically in the sense that faith is something that cannot be justified on the grounds of objective empirical study. So I'm not certain that I agree with that statement, but it's certainly true that there are many believers (adherents to various Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other sects) who have a good understanding of science. As long as your faith merely informs the way you view the world rather than restricting the way you view the world, I think that ensures that you have room in your mind for all ways of gaining knowledge. This tends to be the area where the faith of fundamentalists fails them, as it constricts what they can accept as reality.

Addressing your final point, I can't imagine anyone would seriously question that statement. To argue about a topic from ignorance is simply to ignore the old maxim: it is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.

163

lulapilgrim

on Jul 01, 2008

Again, they have observed, in the lab, how two breeds of fruitflies became two species of fruitflies.

Begin with fruitflies....end with fruitflies...

how two breeds of bacteria evolved into two different species of bacteria with two different ways of "eating".

Begin with bacteria....end with bacteria

Neither one of these examples is evidence for Darwinism nor demonstrates what Darwinism posits...

Also, wouldn't you agree that experiments such as these that we can cause to occur in laboratory settings do not or could not necessarily ever happen in nature?

To understand evolution, one has to read books about it or do research; and they won't.

Leauki,

No offense, but you're mistaken. I've read every science textbook from the 6th to 12th grades, including the AP level on Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I've seen documentaries, videos and read position papers.

I'm tired of the guesswork of those who took Darwin's theory of Godless Evolution and ran with it and find nothing new in Dawkins.

I am open to being convinced by any true believer in Darwinism but all efforts have failed thus far that proves we are descended from the apes. As G.K. Chesterton put it, "the evolutionist seems to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing!"

As far as I can tell the only thing about Darwin's theory that has evolved is Darwin's theory itself.

A worthy goal!

164

Leauki

on Jul 02, 2008

As long as your faith merely informs the way you view the world rather than restricting the way you view the world, I think that ensures that you have room in your mind for all ways of gaining knowledge.

"Religion is a smart man’s admission that he cannot know everything. Religious fundamentalism is a stupid man’s admission that he thinks he knows enough."

-- Moshe Wilkinson

165

lulapilgrim

on Jul 02, 2008

WARRENI POSTS:

Lula,

Time-Life is not really a definitive work of "secular" biology. Time-Life books are cheaply-produced and frequently contain errors and outdated information as the primary literature passes them by and they are not updated.

If your book really says this, it's a sad distortion of reality. An adaptive radiation occurs when a group of organisms moves into a new habitat with many empty ecological niches. It involves relatively rapid evolutionary change resulting in different morphological forms that can take advantage of these niches. Darwin's finches are the classic example.

Macroevolution, as Leauki stated previously, is a creationist fantasy. Evolution is change over time. That's it.

I apologize for taking so long to respond.

Re: Time-Life books....

Time-Life is part and parcel of the liberal, secular media establishment that pushes Darwinism as "fact".

These books don't appear to be cheaply produced...in between its glossy cover is page after page of beautfiully colored drawings depicting Darwin's "molecules to mankind" Evolutionary tree.

Time-Life is full of errors, man's imaginations, but guess what...these are the same errors, same drawings in classroom science textbooks.

Macroevolution, as Leauki stated previously, is a creationist fantasy. Evolution is change over time. That's it.

Gee, which one is it? True blue believers in Darwinism accuse Genesis of being a Creationist fantasy!

What you and Leauki seem to misunderstand is the difference between evolution true science, what some call micro-evolution, and false science, which is what Time-Life is peddling as Macro-Evolution.

This goes to the first sentence of Leauki's article..

True science (evolution = change within kind) is the truth about nature and how it works, and false science (macroevolution = change across different species)is a lie.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!