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 7)

OckhamsRazor

on Jun 21, 2008

Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle etc. all understood the compatility between science and religion.

Now why in the world would you leave Galileo out of this list, Lula? Gee golly willikers hmmm, I wonder....

Smoothseas

on Jun 21, 2008

based on Science...yes. Science not neccesarily because it can't be proven with scientific observation.

the purpose of theory is not that it be proven. It is a basis that is to be improved upon. A good example would be newton's theory of gravitation. It was improved upon and although it is still used because it is simple and provides adequate accuracy for certain things, it has been superceded by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

The same goes for economic theory...The purpose is not to prove them but to improve upon them to create models so economists can forecast economic conditions.

There is contradiction between the Evolutionary Theory as we know it and Christianity.

No. there is a conflict between Darwinism and Genesis. So one is best to research religion and theology. You cannot find answers as to the origin or meaning of Genesis by trying to disprove evolution theory.

In the same regard scientists do not try to improve upon the theory of evolution by trying to disprove Genesis.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 21, 2008

No. there is a conflict between Darwinism and Genesis.

which is semantics. It's the same thing. Darwinists hold to the Evolutionary Theory and Creationists look towards Genesis as their explanation.

It is a basis that is to be improved upon.

Yes, and like I said before you can't prove a negative. You can only prove a positive. So it's not that a negative can't be proven. It's just that it's not proven yet. With better technology and techniques things can change.

So again, since one is looking at the natural and one at the supernatural but both unproven yet, both should be taught as possiblilites.

Smoothseas

on Jun 21, 2008

Darwinists hold to the Evolutionary Theory and Creationists look towards Genesis as their explanation.

You just proved why creationism doesn't belong in a science class.

Science should be taught in a science class.
Religion should be taught in church.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

lulapilgrim

on Jun 21, 2008

Leauki posts: #71

Mainly because Creationists simply call all evolution shown to them and then claim that there is such a thing as "macro-evolution", which the theory of evolution doesn't mention at all.

You still think that evolution speaks of gigantic steps between species while in reality it never did.

What do you want? Do you want an experiment that shows a bacteria transform into a mammal in one or two generations, even though the theory evolution dictates that it cannot? Do you want an example of "macro-evolution" even though the theory of evolution doesn't mention "macro-evolution" and speaks of small changes only?

Experiments for the theory of evolution:

1. One species into two: check.

2. Change of body, completely new mechanisms: check.

AGAIN, LEAUKI, WE AGREE THAT SMALL CHANGE WITHIN SPECIES OCCURS (this is what I've called micro-evolution)...yes, we have evidence of micro-evolution, no question there. However, throughout this discussion, I've always referred to macro-evolution.

Perhaps it would be best to go back to square 1 and define what we are talking about. Throughout this discussion whenever I (and I think KFC) use the word Evolution or Evolution Theory, we mean macro-Evolution..(molecules to man) or what is commonly call Darwinism or Darwin's theory.

Evolution Theory (ET), Darwinism, basically means that higher, more genetically complex forms of life evolve from simpler forms of life. Over the years, we have seen that the theory itself is still evolving as problems are encountered which tend to negate previous theories. The theorists devise new ideas to establish the feasibility of ET.

For molecules to man, ET has to prove that lower grades evolved into higher grades. Evolutionists have to give evidence of or prove a process and to prove that process they need not what they are able to produce at present, but what they are not able to produce, namely the missing transformational links.

The science of paleontology in no way displays transitional forms between phyla and classes, and possibly not even between orders. There aren't any transitional forms between vertebrates and invertebrates. The deeper our knowledge penetrates the fossil evidence, the clearer it seems not in support of ET.

Macro-evolution cannot be demonstrated...the bacteria experiment was not one demonstrating macro-evolution. You start with bacteria...you end with bacteria.

Formation of one kind of species into a different one hasn't been demonstrated. Thus far there has not been any proof in favor of transformation of one lower grade of species into a another higher grade of species and the probabilities are against it.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 21, 2008

Science should be taught in a science class.

Pseudo science should not be taught in a science class as real science; certainly not as fact. Evolution Theory is pseudo science. To believe it one must take someone else's fanciful imaginations on faith.

OckhamsRazor

on Jun 22, 2008

Luka:

These unexplained mysteries can now be given scientific explanations.

Me:

Really? So how does science explain how God created everything? How did he make atoms? How did he make gravity? How did he do all this? I've been dying to know...I'm so glad you have access to the science that explains these mysteries because I missed it somehow. Please enlighten me.

You hear that? Me either, because it's silence.

Lula:

Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle etc. all understood the compatility between science and religion.

They understood what Galileo either didn't understand or refused to pay heed to. That noticing things inn the universe that were documentable (is that a word?) that disagreed with the bible, and doing so too loudly would result in death or incarceration from the church of loving god.

Richard Pogge, Professor of Astronomy - Ohio State:

I get asked about this a great deal, in large measure because the common lore is that the Catholic Church immediately condemned Copernicus and his system, while enlightened Protestants eagerly embraced both. In fact, the response from the leading Protestant theologians of Copernicus' time was swift and negative, though even this response was mostly remarks in passing in conversation or sermons, nothing resembling an organized anti-Copernican campaign. The Catholic Church, despite later official hostility, was largely silent at first. Silence, however, does not necessarily imply approval, as the events of the following century were to so forcefully prove.

Martin Luther on Copernicus:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

Yeah it's pretty clear from both Catholic and Protestant sides just how "compatible" things were.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 22, 2008

So how does science explain how God created everything? How did he make atoms? How did he make gravity? How did he do all this? I've been dying to know...I'm so glad you have access to the science that explains these mysteries because I missed it somehow. Please enlighten me.

How does Science explain otherwise? How did the earth get created? How did atoms get made? When did the first atom appear? How about gravity? How did all these things get started using Science to explain this? Enlighten me.

That noticing things inn the universe that were documentable (is that a word?) that disagreed with the bible

This is an oxymoron. There is not one thing in the bible that Science has disproved as of yet. Most likely Galileo, like Columbus, opened up his bible and read something that helped him scientifically come up with his ideas.

OckhamsRazor

on Jun 22, 2008

Cute. And weak. I'm not the one that made the claim, KFC. Hukked on Fonicks still not helping with your reading comprehension, I see.

Did you read Martin Luther's quote above? Not sure where you see an oxymoron. Maybe you don't quite understand the word...let me think of a good example of a real oxymoron. Ah...here's one. "Creation Scientist."

100

Leauki

on Jun 23, 2008

What is the fear of presenting scientific arguments and inquiry of the Creation model?

I don't know. You tell me.

Perhaps you can shed some light on why it isn't being done? Is it fear?

I remember you told me that an experiment on Creationism would be nearly blasphemy. (I disagreed and said that I think it _is_ blasphemy.) Is that your fear? Is that the fear of other Creationists?

101

Leauki

on Jun 23, 2008

There is no data that proves evolution in the same way that there is no data that proves creationism. (Leauki are you listening?)

KFC, I cannot do more than point you to experiments and research.

If you decide not to listen, that's YOUR problem.

Yes, I am listening. I read all these things.

102

Leauki

on Jun 23, 2008

but that doesn't contradict the creation theory either. Creationists believe in DNA..

Yes, but you also believe that your god took DNA to create things that are evil, like disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and parasites.

So apart from the fact that you cannot demonstrate in experiments how this "creation" works (whereas scientists can demonstrate how evolution works), your "theory" also requires a god who is not only a bad designer but also a sad and evil mad entity who creates suffering despite having the ability (and having made the choice) to create only good.

I have a certain idea of G-d's attributes (my god, not necessarily yours). The theory of evolution does not contradict.

But Creationism does.

It diminishes G-d's role as the creator and has him implement faulty mechanisms.

103

Leauki

on Jun 23, 2008

Again, there is NO SUCH THING as "macro-evolution". It's all micro-evolution.

However, there is no evidence for (and no reason to assume) G-d stopping changes from happening if those changes would, with respect to changes in another population, result in two animals too different from each other even for you to ignore.

There is no built-in barrier in the DNA that stops certain genes from changing and there is no built-in barrier in the DNA that stops certain changes in animals that would make them, over time, "too different".

It's bullshit, and if you actually read something about evolution you would know that.

My guess is that you never picked up a book about evolution (written by a scientist who actually understand it and has done some research) in your life.

104

Leauki

on Jun 23, 2008

based on Science...yes. Science not necessarily because it can't be proven with scientific observation.

Actually, as you were told before, it can and it was.

If you are really trying to convince people that "Creationism" is true and that Christianity is true also, you should understand that behaving in a way that can to us only look like you are lying, will not convince us.

I am telling you one last time that experiments were done and observations made that demonstrate that evolution does work and has happened.

You have two choices:

1. Accept that fact and explain how Creationism is true anyway, even though the evidence suggests evolution.

2. Lie about those experiments and observations and act surprised when you cannot convince anybody but the feeble-minded who don't understand science and are looking for explanations that don't require maths and much reading.

There is no contradiction between true Science and Christianity. They get along quite well regardless of what you've been told by the seculars.

Seculars have never told me that. Only "Christians" have. It was you, primarily, who told me that Christianity and science contradict each other. It was YOU, not secular scientists, who told me that science contradicts the Bible and hence parts of it must be replaced with (your!) faith.

Secular scientists don't care if I believe in a G-d.

Again, you have two options:

1. Stop telling people that secular scientists have a problem with religion when in reality it is certain religions that have a problem with science.

2. Lie.

Science doesn't have an explanation, hence there is no theory and no experiments.

There is the Big Bang model which seems to be fairly accurate (in as much as observations support it), but it doesn't say where the matter condensed before the big bang comes from.

Science doesn't explain the unexplainable. Religion does. But religion does so without evidence and based on on observation other than the reading of books the validity of which is decided by a committee.

(If we decide that religion be taught in science class, will we use dice to let the gods decide which religion to teach? Or will we teach what KFC dictates we must believe? Or will the US let me make that decision? Or the pope? I think I would like Hinduism to be taught. It's a fascinating culture and from what I can see just as true as the Bible.)

105

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 23, 2008

It was you, primarily, who told me that Christianity and science contradict each other. It was YOU, not secular scientists, who told me that science contradicts the Bible and hence parts of it must be replaced with (your!) faith.

I never did any such thing. Show me where I said this. Proof's on you.

I'm tired of your misrepresenting me Leauki. And calling me a liar everytime I talk with you.

I'm done. Believe what you want.

If it makes you feel better, YOU"RE RIGHT!

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!