Thoughts on Creationism

Posted on February 3, 2003 in Crosstalk Evolution & Creation Thinking

Raye’s attracted an attacker on evolution. I say an attacker because jen hasn’t said anything to defend Creationism except that “Science proves it” without giving any details.

I left these thoughts:

“Inciteful” is just the right word for standard creationist arguments against evolution. Note that they never argue for their theory. When you start applying scientific methodology to myth, myth fails.

Sorry, Jen. Creationism is not Science and Science is not religion. It’s a poor silly gospel indeed when you have to place your faith in God on lies about the nature of the world.

Science is not religion. It seeks to define facts which can be quantified with our senses. Jen has not named a single fact in defense of creationism: she’s only said, repeatedly, “evolution doesn’t work” as a sort of mantra, a shibboleth.

I believe that myths may contain truths and may be enjoyed as such, but the truths of which I speak are not of the same order as facts which you can hold, touch, feel, etc.

Arguably, it is blasphemous for a Creationist to attempt to reduce the presence of God in our lives to something that is quantifiable and sensual.

The essential facts that the theory of evolution answers far better than Creationism are these:

1. That the earth is very, very old. That it is older than the date proposed by Creationists.
   
2. That species change over time.

Creationists simply refuse to admit that these are factually true.

Creationists are fond of pointing to holes in the evolutionary record, but it is a bit like quibbling over the guilt of a murderer because the blood stains don’t form a complete trail to his house.

We also have to recognize that there is a theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. The facts are those which I stated above. The theory attempts to piece together the trail and describe from fragmentary evidence exactly how species change. Yes, Scientists keep changing the story. It’s because new evidence comes in and, due to their intellectual honesty, they know they must adjust the theory to fit the new specifics. (Again, the two basic points have not changed. Only the fine details.) In the rigorous analysis and self-critique that scientists apply to themselves, they are a very high step above their Creationist critics.

The professor is no more obligated to write letters of recommendation for students who refuse to accept evolution than a geography professor should be called to account for refusing to recommend a student who believes (for religious reasons) that the earth is flat.

I cast my lot with Evolutionary Science rather than Creationism because it does not force me to lie, which is against my morality.

A useful adage: never allow your mind to remain so open that your brain falls out.

To tell the truth, I hope Ashcroft goes after the professor who Raye names. Just look what happened to the Kansas Board of Education!