The fallacies of creationism
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 2:20 pm
Yeah, we've got a few specific threads going on this topic, but not a general thread for the evolution vs creationism debate. Years ago, I spent a lot of time on a c vs e message board. These are some of my main points.
1. If creationism is really science, then why is it one of the few sciences which produces no tangible results? Why isn't technology based on this science? We don't have creationist engines, creationist computers, creationist medicine, etc., etc. On the other hand, evolution has led to useful breakthroughs in genetics, computer science, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, etc. It seems that the ONLY tangible result of creation "science" is to back up the truth of the Bible.
2. If creationists succeed in their goal to make creationism a legitimate science, then they defeat their own purpose of proving a Creator. For instance, many creationist arguments tend to find natural, physical causes for Biblical "miracles." The parting of the Red Sea. Manna from Heaven. The Genesis Flood. Catastrophic plate subduction--I believe--was tossed around to explain how a global Flood could occur, and thus legitimize the Biblical claim that such a Flood was actually possible (which they believe proves the Bible is true). But I ask you, if a physical mechanism can be found to explain every "act of God," then why still cling to the idea that God had anything to do with it? Substituting a natural explanation for a supernatural event strips it of anything supernatural, and renders any mention of God ad hoc and irrelevant.
Therefore, any attempt to present creationism as a naturalistic science fails before it begins. Creation is a supernatural act, and thus can never be rendered in terms of natural mechanisms without subverting the very idea of creation. Natural mechanisms make the idea of a Creator unnecessary and contradictory. One can still believe that a Creator was involved, but this is a religious belief, not part of a scientific theory.
3. In the attempt to claim creationism is science, and not religion, creationists often try to mask their theory's specific religious origins. They often refuse to admit that they are talking about the Christian God at all, and speak instead of a "designer," as if this neutral concept were more scientific. However, such a theory is indistinguishable from the idea of Satanic Creationism.
The Designer could have just as easily been a demonic being. This actually fits the facts much better, given the "perverse" design of some of life's features. Cancer, genetic disease, pestilence, poisonous plants, preditors feeding upon other creatures, etc. This "design" looks more like the work of Satan than of God. And more to the point: the "theory" of creationism is empirically indistinguishable from Satanic creationism. There is not one experiment you can perform to determine which super-natural being created or designed life.
So if Christian creationism is empirically indistinguishable from Satanic creationism, it can only be distinguished on the basis of faith and religious texts. Thus, in order to preserve its original intent (proving God created life), creationism must once again fall back upon religious faith, and not science at all.
Bottom line: creationism isn't science, and can never be science. The effort to make it into science is both futile and self-contradictory.
1. If creationism is really science, then why is it one of the few sciences which produces no tangible results? Why isn't technology based on this science? We don't have creationist engines, creationist computers, creationist medicine, etc., etc. On the other hand, evolution has led to useful breakthroughs in genetics, computer science, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, etc. It seems that the ONLY tangible result of creation "science" is to back up the truth of the Bible.
2. If creationists succeed in their goal to make creationism a legitimate science, then they defeat their own purpose of proving a Creator. For instance, many creationist arguments tend to find natural, physical causes for Biblical "miracles." The parting of the Red Sea. Manna from Heaven. The Genesis Flood. Catastrophic plate subduction--I believe--was tossed around to explain how a global Flood could occur, and thus legitimize the Biblical claim that such a Flood was actually possible (which they believe proves the Bible is true). But I ask you, if a physical mechanism can be found to explain every "act of God," then why still cling to the idea that God had anything to do with it? Substituting a natural explanation for a supernatural event strips it of anything supernatural, and renders any mention of God ad hoc and irrelevant.
Therefore, any attempt to present creationism as a naturalistic science fails before it begins. Creation is a supernatural act, and thus can never be rendered in terms of natural mechanisms without subverting the very idea of creation. Natural mechanisms make the idea of a Creator unnecessary and contradictory. One can still believe that a Creator was involved, but this is a religious belief, not part of a scientific theory.
3. In the attempt to claim creationism is science, and not religion, creationists often try to mask their theory's specific religious origins. They often refuse to admit that they are talking about the Christian God at all, and speak instead of a "designer," as if this neutral concept were more scientific. However, such a theory is indistinguishable from the idea of Satanic Creationism.
The Designer could have just as easily been a demonic being. This actually fits the facts much better, given the "perverse" design of some of life's features. Cancer, genetic disease, pestilence, poisonous plants, preditors feeding upon other creatures, etc. This "design" looks more like the work of Satan than of God. And more to the point: the "theory" of creationism is empirically indistinguishable from Satanic creationism. There is not one experiment you can perform to determine which super-natural being created or designed life.
So if Christian creationism is empirically indistinguishable from Satanic creationism, it can only be distinguished on the basis of faith and religious texts. Thus, in order to preserve its original intent (proving God created life), creationism must once again fall back upon religious faith, and not science at all.
Bottom line: creationism isn't science, and can never be science. The effort to make it into science is both futile and self-contradictory.
) in favor of a more "national religion of government". The difference here I feel is that some of us are trying to prevent the govt from becoming involved either way, to have no say at all, because they have no business in what religion we choose.