Creationism: Based on Ignorance

Posted: February 26, 2009 in Atheism, Evolution, Religion
Tags: , , , ,

creationismproofCreationism is an odd point of view or belief, to say the least. It is paradoxical in a lot of ways, stating they find it too unbelievable or unlikely that all life on Earth has a common ancestor but are more than willing to state that an omnipotent deity did all the work (despite the distinct lack of evidence for such a claim). Creationists generally have a hard time dealing with the Theory of Evolution since it tends to make their arguments look incredibly silly. They tend to fight tooth and nail against it but time and again it is clear that the entire basis of their claims are based in nothing but ignorance. Case in point, a website from ‘Christians for Truth‘ stating 30 reasons why Evolution is wrong. Of course, all 30 reasons listed are wrong in themselves and betray a complete ignorance and/or misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution as you will see.

First of all, the following reasons were apparently published by a ‘Prof. Dr Grady McMurtry’ who has no actual training in science, nor has he apparently done any sort of scientific research.  It seems possible that McMurty is also lying about the dubious qualifications that he does list (i agriculture and forestry of all things).  I’m somewhat suspicious that the entire site is no more than a Poe.

1. The evolution of one kind into another kind is not happening in a measurable way in the present, nor can it be proven to have occurred in the past.

Depends on definition of ‘kind’ (and the use of the word ‘kind’ is another creationist brain bug which, so it seems, it left intentionally vague).   If the term meant is ‘speciation’ then it has been seen in modern times in both the wild and lab conditions.

This also completely fails to recognise the fact that large scale changes in a population occur over time scales bordering on the geological, not something that can be easily witnessed in a human life time by any stretch of the imagination.

Is there evidence from the past? Yes, a great deal.  Both recorded species distribution and the fossil record both completely support the Theory of Evolution.  The changes in certain species (Horse and Whale, just for two quick examples) over long periods of time are very substantial indeed.  Whale evolution, for example, is fascinating with remains clearly showing the growth and recession of legs, manner of giving birth and the movement of the blow hole.

2. No new kinds of organisms are being observed coming from previously existing organisms. (We “discover” new kinds that we have never cataloged before, but this only shows our ignorance of their existence.)

See above about geological time scales.  This is also something that the Theory of Evolution does not predict in any way.  If we suddenly saw an entire new ‘kind’ (and by kind I’m assuming they mean huge differences like between a dog and horse) spring from another into a stable population then the Theory of Evolution would actually be dead in the water.

As noted at the start of this entry, it is ‘reasons’ such as this one which clearly demonstrate an almost complete ignorance of the Theory of Evolution (and science in general, for that matter).

3. No new structures or organs have been observed coming into existence. All observed structures or organs are fully formed when first observed. (The only observed changes to current structures or organs come from their
decay and degradation.)

I guess someone has not been keeping up with any sort of research.  The E Coli experiment, again just as a quick example, saw a biological population change fundamental aspects of their systems to cope with a new environment.  Yes, you guessed it, that included new biological structures.

4. There are distinct gaps between the known kinds of organisms. One kind is not observed to change into another kind. We do not observe the “missing links” because they are missing, not there, don’t exist.

By ‘missing links’ I have to assume the author is referring to transitional fossils.  Again, the authors ignorance of science is on show as being profound.  Many examples of transitional remains have been located, analysed and verified including (just a very quick list, off the top of my head); Tiktaalik, Yanoconodon, Indohyus, Onychonycteris, Odontochelys.

5. Life only comes from life and reproduces after its own kind. Life does not come from nonliving material. Life does not spontaneously generate itself.

Has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.  If the author can not realise or does not know the difference between the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis, then he is truly a man drowning in his own ignorance.  On a side note, it should be stated that the Theory of Abiogenesis is also quite well supported by available evidence.

6. Mutations, the supposed driving mechanisms of evolution, are random in nature and are neutral or harmful. They do not accumulate beneficially. Mutations produce the wrong kind of change and will not provide for the “upward” progressive increase in intelligence or complexity required by
evolutionists.

I have absolutely no idea where this opinion came from.  The examples of beneficial mutations are quite common.  An easy to understand example of this is simply the way that virus’ and bacteria build up resistances to anti-viral drugs, pesticides and so forth through generational change.

Again, the reason displays a basic ignorance of science (in this case biology).

7. We observe stasis, not change, in nature. Extinction is a proof of creation. We do not find change in the fossil record nor can we measure it in the present. Animal and plant kinds that exist today retain the same appearance but are smaller in size than their known predecessors.

This statement is full of mistakes and appears to be several false arguments mashed into one grammatically incorrect pool of ignorance.  First of all, change of observed in nature all the time; populations grow and shrink.  Populations go extinct through natural means.  Environments change constantly be it temperature, PH levels, water supply or what-have-you.  How ‘extinction is a proof of creation’ is completely beyond me at this time.

There is plenty of change seen in the fossil record, if there were not then we would find Mammoth remains dating back from last week until three hundred million years ago.

Modern animals do tend to be smaller than their ancestoral species and this is for numerous predicted reasons.  A really good one is that their current size is more energy efficient than their ancestoral species (it takes a great deal more energy to move a three tonne body than it does a five hundred kilogram one).  That energy needs to come from food so smaller forms mean less time wasted on scrounging for nutrients.  This particular statement is also contradictory to what they said earlier in that no change can be beneficial … and yet they list one right there.

8. The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be  in their textbooks.(snip to save space)

Diagrams in text books are simplifications to aid in the understanding of concepts and this is done right across science.  The diagrams are not and never have been intended to be 100% accurate since that is not their purpose, as mentioned.  As another example, imagine if textbooks showed a diagram of a uranium molecule or atom; it certainly would not be a big circle neatly being orbitted by a number of smaller ones.

Instead, a simple diagram is used to aid in the basic understanding of the concept.

So another reason (as if more were needed) which displays gross ignorance.

9. Polystrate fossils, fossils which penetrate two or more layers of the fossil record (most often trees), are common throughout the fossil record. In rare cases even large animal skeletons have been found in vertical position rather than in a horizontal position.

Examples of this which have not been clearly and repeatedly explained through such things as earthquakes or mudslides?  Ah, that is right … there are not any.  This has not been any sort of problem since the Theory of Evolution was originally penned nor is it one now.

10. Life forms are found to be complex even in the “oldest” layers of the fossil record. For example, various species of Trilobites are found to have very sophisticated eyesight. Yet evolutionists say that these creatures supposedly evolved into existence when the first multiple celled life forms began to evolve some 620 million supposed years ago.

Fossilisation simply does not happen with extremely simple life.  Generally speaking, an organism needs some form of hard support system (be it endo-skeleton or vetebrate based skeleton) for it to occurr since flesh does not fossilise.   The first multiple celled life would certainly have been much, much simpler than Trilobites; instead it would have been much more along the lines of a basic amoeba (but even that is far too complex).

11. Nature does not provide us with the proof for the “Tree of Life” so glibly talked about by evolutionists. We do not find life starting as simple and then branching upward and outward as it becomes more and more complex. We do not find that life forms follow the pattern of a single tree trunk with many branches. The physical evidence provided by nature gives a
picture of an extremely large orchard with all plant and animal types represented from the beginning with their own individual trunks and branches producing the variations within kinds that
we have today, but no new kinds progressing from previous kinds.

The ‘tree of life’ model is completely out dated and actually has never been used except in basic science text books for school students (for reasons why, see above).  Instead, it is much more like a coral with a central starting point and life branching out in all different directions forming a large and complex structure which interacts in all manner of places.  Even assuming this is what the author meant, they provide no evidence for dismissing it even though genetic examination and distribution of species across the globe both solidly support this model.

12. There are no transitional forms found in the fossil record. In spite of all the reports people may have heard, we have never found the fossil of a plant or an animal which is a true intermediate form. The “missing links” are missing because they are missing.

False claim. See above for a very quick list of just some.

13. Be wary of artists renderings. An artist’s depiction, conception or illustration is imaginary. Simply because we see an artist’s illustration of a cow becoming a whale doesn’t make it so. Human desire and imagination are not evidence.

This is not any sort of evidence or argument at all.  But, shock horror, the author does actually have a point with this one.  One the other hand the same point he’s making must also be applied to his argument; just because someone people painted pretty pictures of a god creating something does not mean it happened in that way at all.

On the other hand, when a museum or university hires an artist to create an artist’s rendition of an ancient animal of some kind then it is for a purpose.  That purpose is to to create an idea of what an animal might have looked like based on certain evidence.  In a ways it is like having a wooden frame for an armchair and working out what it might have looked like if it had been upholstered.

14. Ancient man was not primitive. Ancient human cultures had more complex languages than we do today. The engineering feasts of the past cultures are well recognized and in some cases have not been duplicated in modern times. There never was a Stone Age, Bronze Age or Iron Age. Man has used stone, bronze and iron tools in all “ages” of past human activity. Indeed, there is nothing new under the sun.

A pity all the archaelogical evidence completely shoots this rather silly claim out of the proverbial water.  How?  Well, the finding and analysation of … well, stone, bronze and iron tools for starters.  The dating of cave paintings and human remains therein also does the author’s case no favours.

‘Nothing new under the sun’? That completely contradicts various things.  Look at the progress of humanity in the past couple of centuries – lots of new things have come into existence thanks to technology (harnessing of electricity, computers, mass transport systems, mass education systems and so on).  To make the author look like even more of a buffoon he himself noted that species are smaller (generally speaking) than their own ancestors … their size is new.

15. The law of Cause and Effect not only describes that for every effect there must have been a cause, it also tells us that the cause must be greater than the effect. No one can create anything greater than themselves. You do not get an increase in intelligence or complexity without the input from a greater intelligence.

16. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics work contrary to evolutionary belief. The First Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Energy Conservation) proves that the universe cannot be the reason for its own existence. According to the First Law the universe cannot have been anything less than it is, and if it cannot have been anything less than it is, it had to come into existence whole and complete. If the universe came into existence whole and complete, then it had to be created. Simply adding energy to a system will not cause an increase in intelligence or complexity. The addition of undirected energy to a system accomplishes nothing, except possibly for the destruction of that system.

15 & 16 are actually arguing the same thing so I’ll deal with both here.

Basically, this argument stems from a gross misunderstanding and misapplication of the First Law of Thermodynamics.  The author seems to be completely unaware that there are numerous different types of identifiable energy be it kinetic, heat or whatever.  The really important one in this case is what is known as potential energy; the best brief summary I’ve seen to explain this is ” The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero.”  Hence the creation of the Universe does not violate the conservation of energy.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Entropy) proves that evolution cannot happen. The Second Law stipulates (a poor attempt by scientists to describe The Curse of Genesis Chapter 3 and Revelation) that in all activities some of the energy becomes unavailable for further useful work. The universe is running down, not up.

That is a very poor way indeed of explaining the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  It is also a completely misunderstanding of it since it has been observed regularly (eg, the growth of organic entities) that entropy can decrease in local (relatively speaking) pockets while overall entropy does increase.   Of course, this is supported fully by the Big Bang Theory hence why the Universe was really insanely hot at the start and has been cooling ever since (supported by that whacky background radiation detected throughout the observable universe).

17. The concept of a “Big Bang” producing the universe is absolutely illogical. Explosions do not produce ever increasing order and structure. Explosions produce disorder and chaos. Explosions break things down or destroy what was previously ordered.

The ignorance simply does not stop, does it?  The Big Bang is nothing to do with an explosion but instead is all about expansion.  That is a key difference and thus this entire reason is based on fundamental ignorance and is therefore moot.

18. There is no substantiated method in nature which would allow stars to be “born.” The Gas Laws prove that the pressure of hot gases expanding outward from a center is far greater than the gravitational force drawing them towards a center. Stars could not evolve into existence.

I have no idea where they pulled this malarky out from at all.  The creation is stars is well supported through a simple mechanism known as ‘gravity’ and ‘mass’.  Simply put, Hydrogen molecules spread out and form nebulae. (clouds light years across). The gas molecules collide due to mutual attraction (thankyou, mass) thus increasing their overall mass and attract more to them until such time as a lot of hydrogren is in one place and it all ignites due to the pressure of it’s own mass and gravity.  When that happens, nuclear fusion takes place and you have yourself a brand new star.

19. The Law of Biogenesis (the Law of Life Beginnings) accurately states that life only comes from life, and that life only reproduces after its own kind. Life cannot spontaneously generate and life forms do not change from one kind into another kind.

The Law of Biogenesis only deals with complex life such as flies and maggots, nothing else.  Is it not interesting how the author on one hand states that a lot of science is full of it and yet fully supports rather outdated ideas about science?

20. The input of undirected energy accomplishes nothing. The input of undirected energy will destroy a system, not build it up. Only the input from a greater intelligence will cause a beneficial increase in order and/or complexity.

False due to observable evidence.  The Sun delivers undirected energy to us each and every instant and yet here we are, fit and healthy.

21. Not only must there be the input from a greater intelligence in order to produce an increase in complexity  and/or intelligence, that intelligence must have a preconceived plan of action. No master craftsman would start to build without first having a plan, a blueprint.

Presupposes existence of said intelligence without any sort of evidence.  The author is now also trying to tell us he knows the mind of his own deity/creator which is really pretty arrogant.  Talk of design/plan when no evidence exists of such.

22. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen!

A pity the maths actually disagrees with this statement as do lab experiments (such as that performed by Urrey and Miller).  Is it unlikely for it to happen? Yes, it is.  But you then need to realise that it only needed to have happen once and an incalcuable number of such events where happening at the same time all over the planet (and yes, that is an over simplication of the process but in this case I think a gross dumbing down of it is necessitated).

23. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are supposed to be the driving forces of progressive upward evolution. There are no selective benefits for a supposed transitional form. There would be no advantage for a creature to have a half-evolved eye or a half-evolved wing. Indeed, the existence of such structures would be detrimental and serve only to eliminate, not perpetuate, such disfigured organisms from a given population.

Half an eye would be a huge improvement over no eye at all, since it would be much easier to tell if it was night or day, if obstacles were in your path (even if you couldn’t tell if it was a rock or predator) and so on.  There are plenty of ‘half eyes’ found in nature today.   Half a wing is also a lot better than none at all since it would be an excellent way to slow down falls or to even glide through tree tops (as seen in numerous examples in nature today).

24. The presumed intermediates required by evolution do not exist. The missing links are missing because they are missing. Reptilian scales do not/cannot become feathers. These structures originate from different cells within the skin tissue. Reptilian lungs do not/cannot change to become avian (bird) lungs. Air flows in and out of reptilian lungs just as in humans. Bird lungs have a flow through design.

This is getting repetitive. See above about transitional fossils.

25. Living organisms are incredibly complex and have specific design features. In order to make this point please consider the following partial list: woodpecker tongue, Bombardier Beetle chemistry, insect metamorphosis, Giraffe heart and arterial system, Gecko feet and  human eyes (or human brains for that matter).

And all of the above have excellent explanations for existing thanks to the Theory of Evolution.  For example, the Woodpecker’s feeding mechanism is excellent for getting at their source of food – hence it formed from it’s ancient ancestors mechanism for doing the same thing.   Everything in nature is about finding a niche and surviving in it while sometimes leaving it for a better niche or fitting better into said niche (depending on circumstances).

26. Single-celled organisms such as bacteria, amoeba and algae have the same degree of complexity within them that multiple-celled organisms have within them. Single-celled organisms have a skeleton, respiratory system, digestion and elimination systems, circulatory system, reproductive system, command and communi-    cation system.

And the point made in this reason is…?  Single celled life would have been much simpler when life first originated.

27. Life forms are irreducibly complex. To code for RNA production within a cell you must already have whole and complete DNA. To make DNA you must already have whole and complete RNA. In addition, it requires about 70 proteins to fabricate a DNA molecule, but you must have whole and complete DNA to fabricate those proteins.

Makes an assumption based on modern complex life without taking any sort of regard that the earliest life must have been much simpler.  Also, DNA comes from RNA which in turn can come from places such as peptide nucleaic acids.  Yes, this has all been verified by research.

28. When we see design we know that there is/was a designer. (snip)

Appeal to the Watchmaker argument which holds no weight since it (for just one quick reason) assumes life is designed when there is no evidence for such.

29. Charles Darwin stated that the existence of vestigial and retrogressive organs and structures in the human body were essential proofs of evolution. It has now been determined that there are NO vestigial or retrogressive organs or structures in a human body!

Oh, but there are.  The appendix is a classic example of this.  Yes, it does play a role in terms of the immune system but no more than any other organ in the body.  Meanwhile, it serves no other apparent function and has grown smaller and more prone to infection as time has gone on.  Wisdom teeth are another classic example, which serve little to no modern purpose and are instead no more than a cause of infection and pain.

30. Evolutionary theories remain incapable of explaining the existence of sex, symbiosis or altruism.

Says who? There are numerous methods of reproduction throughout nature, some requiring multiple organisms and some only one.  Some require members of other species for reproduction to be successful.  Again, ignorance of scientific researchs shines from the author.

Altruism has been observed through a number of species and is absolutely fine according to the Theory of Evolution.  In species where social cohesion is a vital part of continued survival, it plays a key role in keeping said social groups together and alive instead of spread out and being eaten by things.

And people wonder why creationists get laughed at…

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Garrett Oden says:

    So how do you tell which parts are symbolic and which are literal? As soon as you do that, you’re exposing the bible to a very subjective human viewpoint and thus it’s infallibility instantly dissolves and it stops being any sort of credible evidence.

    You can tell based on how the Bible uses them. Some are difficult to tell, perhaps on purpose, but most it is clear. Again, this could easily be another one of those pride things.

    Evidence fail.

    Weren’t you telling me to come up with my own things and not just copy what others say?

    You keep saying that ‘evolutionists’ make guesses all the time but you have yet to produce even one example which stands up to any sort of scrutiny and is not based in your own scientific ignorance.

    Dude radiometric dating. This is probably the 15th time I have mentioned how it uses guesses.

    It shares a name. It means nothing. You could have someone declare Peru the new Aztec empire but it would not make it the same empire that ruled that area centuries ago.

    True, names are only what we make them, but then you could say that every religious text ever made is geographically accurate because names don’t really mean anything.

    But in the case of Solomon ruling Israel, the name means everything.

  2. Matt says:

    You can tell based on how the Bible uses them. Some are difficult to tell, perhaps on purpose, but most it is clear. Again, this could easily be another one of those pride things.

    Subjective human judgement. No infallibility in supposed holy text, so it therefore fails as credibly evidence.

    Dude radiometric dating. This is probably the 15th time I have mentioned how it uses guesses.

    And I have provided scientific research which shows that it doesn’t. You obviously did not take the time to even look at said research. This point you are making is based on nothing but your own ignorance.

    But in the case of Solomon ruling Israel, the name means everything.

    The old empire that got annihilated? Sure.
    The current one? No, not in the least. You need to try a lot harder than that.

  3. Garrett Oden says:

    And I have provided scientific research which shows that it doesn’t.

    You told me that radiometric dating relies on carbon dating to be accurate. That is mainly what I was trying to get at, you just found good ways to word it.

    The old empire that got annihilated? Sure.
    The current one? No, not in the least. You need to try a lot harder than that.

    But Jews still live. There are several places in the Bible where God refers to a place, but really means the people.

  4. Matt says:

    You told me that radiometric dating relies on carbon dating to be accurate. That is mainly what I was trying to get at, you just found good ways to word it.

    No, it doesn’t. You really aren’t comprehending what is being said at all. They are independent tests which are (and read closely, please) compared against each other and (shock, horror) other testing methods as well.

    Now go and read the research I linked to before you make one more comment on the nature/accuracy/characteristics of scientific testing. Right now all you’re doing is trying to argue from a position of demonstrated ignorance and all you’re achieving is embarrassing yourself.

    But Jews still live. There are several places in the Bible where God refers to a place, but really means the people.

    Subjective interpretation. Not evidence.

  5. Garrett Oden says:

    all you’re achieving is embarrassing yourself.

    Maybe in your opinion.

    There are obvious things that we will just never agree on, so I am going to begin to drop those topics when it becomes apparent that neither of us will ever change the other’s mind.

    Subjective interpretation.

    When you put it that way, isn’t everything subjective interpretation?

  6. Matt says:

    When you put it that way, isn’t everything subjective interpretation?

    To a given value of subjective interpretation.

    Theology, for example, is very … liberal with the level of subjective interpretation they do with their source material. There are various different definitions of what a certain passage means, what it does and does not say, etc.

    Compare that to science where all the fundamentals are agreed upon. Extremely little debate over the periodic table, the age of the Earth, chemical reactions, etc.

    Theology, generally speaking, relies on subjective interpretations. Science does it’s best to get rid of them and be as objective as possible. Therefore, science is innately more reliable.

  7. Garrett Oden says:

    There are various different definitions of what a certain passage means, what it does and does not say, etc.

    Well God made it that way, we didn’t choose that.

  8. Matt says:

    Well God made it that way, we didn’t choose that.

    That is possibly the weakest rebuttal I’ve ever encountered for that particular argument; in no way does it salvage the credibility of the bible in the least.

    It also speaks extremely poorly for gods communication skills, the credibility of scripture and a lot of other things; none of them positive for your position.

  9. Garrett Oden says:

    That is possibly the weakest rebuttal I’ve ever encountered for that particular argument; in no way does it salvage the credibility of the bible in the least.

    Not really. If I asked you why Superman could fly your only real response could be: “that’s how the author made it”.

    It also speaks extremely poorly for gods communication skills

    Ah but I think it only begins to show His amazing skills.

  10. Matt says:

    Not really. If I asked you why Superman could fly your only real response could be: “that’s how the author made it”.

    Logic fail. Presumes existence of a god when trying to prove existence of said god.

    It also, extending the logic of the rather bad argument, works on the presumption that the universe is fiction.

    Ah but I think it only begins to show His amazing skills.

    That he’s unable to communicate what is a relatively straight forward concept effectively? Um, right. By that logic, you must regard Helen Keller as a public speaking genius.

  11. Garrett Oden says:

    Presumes existence of a god when trying to prove existence of said god.

    Sorry it’s been a couple days and you lost me.

    That he’s unable to communicate what is a relatively straight forward concept effectively? Um, right. By that logic, you must regard Helen Keller as a public speaking genius.

    Well I guess I couldn’t expect you to understand. There will be a day Matt.

  12. Seeker767 says:

    Matt: you seriously own. Props my friend.
    If you’re ever interested in the scientific approach to spirituality, that’s what my website is basically about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s