Creative Challenge #47: Best Creationist Argument

This one will be especially difficult, dear reader, because it requires that you think like a creationist. We’ve posted many times about various things creationists imagine to be evidence for their beliefs. They’ve raved about every creature and every feature of reality, claiming that only their divine designer — blessed be he! — could have done such a thing.

It’s difficult to out-perform creationists in this area. Absurd arguments come naturally to them. We tried once — see The Ultimate Proof of Intelligent Design — but we know that if you make the effort, you can do better.

Imagine that you’re a creationist. You know with absolute certainty that science is evil and logical thought is the devil’s trap to lure you into the Lake of Fire. Okay, now let your mind wander, as you seek the most powerful argument you can think of to support your belief in creationism. This isn’t easy, so take you time. Don’t play until you’re ready.

The form of today’s challenge is that you must tell us, with reasonable brevity:

What is the best argument for creationism?

You know the rules: You may enter the contest as many times as you wish, but you must avoid profanity, vulgarity, childish anatomical analogies, etc. Also, avoid slanderous statements about individuals. Feel free to comment on the entries submitted by others — with praise, criticism, or whatever — but you must do so tastefully.

There may not be a winner of this contest, but if there is, your Curmudgeon will decide, and whenever we get around to it we’ll announce who the winner is. There is no tangible prize — as always in life’s great challenges, the accomplishment is its own reward. We now throw open the comments section, dear reader. Go for it!

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

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

23 responses to “Creative Challenge #47: Best Creationist Argument

  1. I often point out that before talking about evidence for something, it only makes sense to say what that “someting” is. In the case of creationism, there is little of substance: Who, What, when, where, why, How.
    One thing positive to say about Young Earth Creationism is that they do answer the “When”.
    And the “When”, about 6000 years ago, also happens to be mentioned in the Bible. Unlike “anything other than evolution”, which is not mentioned in the Bible – the necessary concepts did not exist in the Ancient Near East.
    Therefore, I see that the only possible answer to the Challenge is:
    The best creationist argument is: The literal interpretation of the Bible tells us When.
    There is no other substance to creationism, so the only evidence worth considering is evidence for the Young Earth.

  2. Michael Fugate

    That millions of people believe it to be true.

  3. “That millions of people believe it to be true” is the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy; it wouldn’t work for my university philosophy professor and it won’t work here.

  4. Creationists’ argument? It all boils down to:

    The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.

  5. Michael Fugate

    Cynic – so? It is their “best” argument. Nobody said it had to be any good.

  6. Spider webs.

    It’s a valid criticism of ID that ‘design’ is not a sufficient explanation for a physical object (animate or not); designs by an intelligent agent must be manufactured by some means if they are to be manifest in the real world.

    Spider webs are clearly manufactured by arachnids, and arguably are so made in conformity to a specific design. And design, as is axiomatic in ID theory–can only arise in the presence of an intelligent agent. If we admit that spider webs cannot arise through random acts of nature (no tornado in a silk factory would produce a functional spider web), then we must conclude that either:

    (a) spiders are sufficiently intelligent to design the elaborate webs they spin,


    (b) an external intelligent agent, which has designed the web, uses spiders as little sock puppets to manufacture them.

    [Yes, I know, I know–this is all fallacious as all get out–but I do marvel that Creationists haven’t developed similar arguments centered on instinctive behaviour by animals (birds’ nests, beaver dams) or even some growth patterns of plants (heliotropism, twinning) as ‘evidence’ for external intelligence at work in the natural world]

  7. Megalonyx, by an odd coincidence, such an argument appears this very day at ol’ Hambo’s website: The Ultimate Web Designer.

  8. Life is based on carbon, and no other element except carbon has such an inherently complex chemistry. It is special. Therefore, it had to be created.

  9. God placed a burden on my heart to heed his Word, or at least that is what my pastor told me and I always listen to my pastor…except when I have a beer, gamble at a casino, lust after that cute (not quite 18) neighbor gal, wear wool under synthetic parka….

  10. Ceteris Paribus

    The best argument for Creationism is simply that no rational “God” in the entire cosmos would ever attempt to foist off such a silly idea as “Creationism” on any sentient creature which might be living on that particular planet.

    Therefore, the fact that this Earth is a planet, now just roiling in “Creationists with their hair on fire”, we must of necessity conclude that, indeed, Creationism was well and truly a gift from an irrational God.

  11. “What is the best argument for creationism?”

    Science is hard — faith/denial is easy.

  12. Premise 1: Received reality, especially in its less imminent, less immediate aspects, is slightly different for every person, every mind. Evidence for this proposition: compare any set of eyewitness accounts of any event whatsoever. Invariably one finds discrepancies. The witnesses attest to different receptions of reality.

    Premise 2: Evidence itself is part of received reality

    Interim conclusion 1: THEREFORE, evidence also may be different for every person, every mind.

    Premise 3: But evidence is the means by which valid decisions are to be made.

    Interim conclusion 2: THEREFORE, since evidence is different for different minds, different valid decisions must result

    Premise 4: The decision to accept creationist explanations is a decision.

    Final conclusion: A decision to accept creationist explanations is a valid decision.

  13. So far, Coyote is winning. If y’all don’t understand why, it’s because you’re not thinking like a creationist, which is required for this contest.

  14. The best argument for creationism is that, by golly, millions and millions of people believe in it because it’s in the Bible, which is the inerrant Word of God. And if you don’t believe it, it’s the rack and the stake for you! (Or, these days, waterboarding and the electric chair.)

  15. Our Curmudgeon enjoins us to try

    thinking like a creationist

    That phrase should win a prize for the Ultimate Oxymoron.

    Creationists don’t think, they intuit!

  16. Believe in evolution? You’ll burn forever in hell! Go for something more plausible like bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. If you prefer the biblical go with unicorns.

  17. Just because…..

  18. Shaun, you’re not far wrong. I have some amount of respect for someone who says, “I believe the world is 6000 years old. I can’t explain it, and I understand that the evidence points in a different direction, but I believe it – I don’t require that anyone else believe it, though.”

    It’s a rare person who says that these days, though.

  19. @dweller42
    I have to agree.

  20. @Dave Luckett

    Your hidden assumption?

    That “different receptions of reality” are equally valid, and can all therefore lead to “different valid decisions”.

  21. The best argument is one that doesn’t rely on evidence. Take your pick.

  22. The malaria parasite has two hosts and six phases. Such a thing could not have happened by chance, and must have been divinely hand-crafted

  23. @Paul Braterman
    Such a thing “must have been” the product of supernatural crafter(s).
    Which makes it sound like Gnosticism.
    If anyone takes the trouble to think through Creationism.