The Folly of Creationism

Imagine a scientist from Japan or India or some other place where he had never heard of the creation account in Genesis (or its Islamic counterpart). If he were to honestly and systematically consider the objectively verifiable evidence in reaching scientific conclusions (as a scientist should), then:

1. It would never occur to him that the world is only 6,000 years old (see How Old is the Earth);

2. It would never occur to him that there had been a miles-deep global flood about 3,000 years ago (see The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood);

3. It would never occur to him that all species lived at the same time (see The Fossil Record: Evolution or “Scientific Creation” [Note: that link to Clifford A. Cuffey’s article seems to be bad], see also Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record); and

4. He would inevitably conclude that all species evolved over time, are related by common descent, and that the relationships are becoming more clear all the time (see Tree of Life Web Project ).

Because creationism doesn’t have any evidentiary support — indeed, the evidence contradicts creationism — it has no scientific standing. Therefore, it is properly regarded as a religious doctrine. There’s nothing wrong with that, and creationists are free to believe whatever they like; but the point is that there’s nothing scientific about such beliefs.

Despite the disgraceful denials of creation “scientists” (including Intelligent Design devotees), if you scrape away the thin veneer of sloppily slapped-on scientific jargon, you’ll find a religiously motivated ideologue. Their unfathomable fanaticism does not constitute a scientific controversy; nor does their indefatigable persistence indicate a weakness in the theory of evolution.

Therefore, under both state and federal Constitutional principles, creationism — in all its ever-changing guises — has no place in the science classes of government schools.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “The Folly of Creationism

  1. carolinaguitarman

    Why do you hate the Baby Jesus?

    Get the barbecue sauce!
    :)

  2. What specific species evolved into what other specific species in a single example of evolution? (meaning two successive species one into the next, not a single small step in the larger overall process of evolution).

    I’d like to pin down specifics in this “science” of evolution.

  3. Please note correction of my name; my first comment had a “v” typo in it.

    Speaking of “Because creationism doesn’t have any evidentiary support,” without the answer to my question, above, there is no evidentiary support for evolution. Also, where are the transitional types between the two species addressed above? If this evolution took immense periods of time, then it involved many generations of transitional animals between the two species. Where are the fossils of some of those transitional generations?

  4. Gabriel Hanna

    What specific species evolved into what other specific species in a single example of evolution? (meaning two successive species one into the next, not a single small step in the larger overall process of evolution).

    I’d like to pin down specifics in this “science” of evolution….

    Where are the fossils of some of those transitional generations?

    Too many to name. See Curmudgeon’s post on Tiktaalik for a good example.

    But I’m afraid you intend to play word games regarding “species” and “transition”. Creationists like to play this game: they demand to see a transitional fossil, then when it is found, demand to see two more, and when those are found, demand to see four more…. it never ends.

  5. Gabriel Hanna

    Here are some examples from hominid evolution.

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/11/dmanisi-postcranial.html

    It is very, very easy to educate yourself about this, there are any number of good popular science publications that regularly write about new transitional fossils, and any number of good popular books. Instead, you prefer to go to websites about evolution and throw down a gauntlet.

    Since you don’t bother to educate yourself, that suggests to me that you are not really interested in learning about evolution.

  6. Eugene — If you truly want answers to specific scientific questions, you should look elsewhere as this blog deals more with the political, historical and philosophical issues of the evolution vs. creationism “controversy” rather than the scientific details. It makes me wonder why you are asking your question here instead of on one of the more science-oriented sites.

  7. RogerE says:

    … this blog deals more with the political, historical and philosophical issues of the evolution vs. creationism “controversy” rather than the scientific details.

    Yup. No one comes here to read about sequencing DNA. Creationists don’t know or want to learn about the science. It’s not even relevant to The Controversy.

  8. Gabriel Hanna

    Eugene, everything you have said is wrong, and if you bothered to read scientific publications instead of creationist nonsense you would know this.

    You are a liar. You came in here pretending you wanted to see “evidence”; but you have made no effort whatever to examine ANY.

    Why should any of us bother with you? There are literally HUNDREDS of transitional fossils–check the Tiktaalik article for a place to start.

    If you come in here saying “All I want to see is ONE”, you are a liar. You can see as many as you want any time you want. You’ve just decided to close your eyes.

  9. Gabriel Hanna

    I can prove you are dishonest, Eugene. Here goes.

    Let’s say I have, stuffed in my closet, my father’s skeleton, his father’s skeleton, HIS father’s skeleton, all the way back to Homo habilis. Clearly that is hundreds or thousands of skeletons.

    Let’s say I arrange them on a table in order from oldest to youngest.

    Would you accept that I had demonstrated the transition between H. habilis and H. sapiens?

    Suppose I only had every 10th one. Would you accept it then?

    Suppose I only had every 100th?

    Suppose I only had every 1000th?

    Suppose I only had every 10,000th?

    The thing is, you won’t believe it no matter how many skeletons I produce.

  10. Gabriel Hanna says: “I can prove you are dishonest, Eugene. Here goes.”

    He’s tough to ban. Keeps coming in with different isp numbers. I’ll get him.

  11. Pingback: Science, Creationism, and Everything « The Sensuous Curmudgeon