It’s been three years since we added to our “Stupid Driven” series, in which we offer disconnected observations we’ve made while reporting on The Controversy between evolution and creationism. These are sometimes taken from our earlier articles, but all of them were inspired by reading and analyzing the “work” of creationists. And yes, our title is a crude spoof on The Purpose Driven Life.
For earlier episodes in this thrilling series, see: Part I, followed by Part II, and then Part III, and then Part IV, and then Part V, and then Part VI, and then Part VII, and then Part VIII, and then Part IX, and then Part X, and then Part XI, and most recently Part XII. Okay, here we go:
Creationists claim that Darwin’s theory is responsible for all the evils in the world. With equal intellectual rigor, we claim that science-denial and creationism are responsible for theocracy, despotism, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia, and cannibalism.
Creationists claim that the alleged “fine tuning” of the fundamental constants of the universe and the laws of nature are evidence that the universe was purposefully designed for life — but they never tell us what things would have been like in the absence of fine tuning. Our response is that no supernatural meddling is necessary. Laws of nature and fundamental constants are observed because everything that exists has specific characteristics and acts accordingly — e.g., an electron always acts like an electron, and not a neutron. Things are what they are, and do what they do. It would take a miracle for it to be otherwise. The laws of nature are an inevitable corollary of existence itself — not a capricious, miraculous afterthought.
Creationist often confuse evolution and cosmology, and they claim that scientists believe the Big Bang came from nothing, which is an impossibility. But if you begin — as creationists do — with the assumption that the universe didn’t exist before creation, you end up in a philosophical strait-jacket. Starting with a state of nothing, there’s nowhere to go. That’s a good reason to abandon the presupposition of nothingness — it gets you nowhere. To fix that problem, creationists need to make yet another arbitrary presupposition — that there was “Something” in that state of nothingness, and that Something somehow generated the universe.
What’s the appropriate word to use when one understands a scientific theory and accepts it, based not only on the verifiable evidence, but also on the fact that in all the theory’s tests, it has never been disproved? Obviously, “faith” is inappropriate. Our preferred word is “confidence” — that is, one has confidence in the theory — which is justified as long as the theory is consistent with the evidence.
Despite the endless claims of its advocates, so-called “creation science” has made no contribution to science, industry, agriculture, medicine, or any other rational endeavor — nor are any accomplishments likely in the future. It explains nothing, predicts nothing, and it doesn’t mean anything. But like astrology, flat-Earthism, geocentricism, and dozens of other crackpot beliefs, creationism persists. As the moth is drawn to the flame, the simpleton seeks the charlatan.
We conclude with some Curmudgeonly poetry:
Mars is red, Uranus is blue,
Creationism is a pile of poo.
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.