Same Old, Same Old: Creationist Arguments

Posted: May 5, 2009 in Atheism, Evolution, Religion, Science
Tags: , , , , , ,

20070706You would think by now that creationists would start realising that their arguments simply hold no water. Their intellectual validity of said arguments are inconceivably small.  That science (that is observed and tested fact) points completely away from the creationist viewpoint.  Sadly, this is not the case.  What is even sadder is that, apparently, religious leaders continue to spread a message which is demonstratively false.

This particular example of silliness comes from a blog called Apologia which is apparently run by some sort of minister/pastor.  The entry in question is simply called “Does God Exist?“.  You can read the full text via the link, I will concentrate on the actual reasons listed for the existence of a deity figure.

One of the reasons that we know that God exists is that the universe exists.

That in no way indicates the existence of any sort of deity figure, especially since we have an excellent piece of science which explains it without the need for said deity.  Occam’s Razor (and general common sense, for that matter) state you do not bring unneeded mechanisms into an explanation so we don’t require any sort of deity mechanism.

If the big bang theory is correct, it actually is explained more easily if God was behind it.

Science does not know where that first singularity came from, since the laws of the Universe can not exist before the Universe existed … well, it is not something science is currently equipped to deal with.  However, to jump to the conclusion that ‘God did it’ is the use of what is known as the ‘god of the gaps’ argument which is regarded as a fallacy.

Another reason that we know that there is a God is the existence of morality.

This argument is so incredibly old and been shot down so many times, that it is simply tiresome to even deal with it.  Morality is subjective, it changes over time and from culture to culture.  There are certain fundamentals that run through nearly all cultures but those are perfectly explained by a little field of study called evolutionary ethics and morality.  Basically it boils down to the fact that to survive certain species (including humans) needed each other to survive.  To maintain group cohesion, they quickly had to invent/learn certain social norms (like not killing each other) since the alternative would be to have the group dissolve and get killed by nearby physically superior animals intent on eating their collective livers.

One of the interesting things about belief in God is the fact that it is almost universal. Not that everyone believes in God, but unbelief is a very small percentage.

This is one the daftest pieces of reasoning I have ever occurred.  It is an appeal to popularity and we all know that just because something is popular, it does not mean it is right.  It is also an argument which fails to take into account the knowledge base of humans when they started to think up whatever religion you care to think of.  Back even five hundred years ago, humans were incredibly ignorant about all sorts of things – and so made up deities to explain what they could not understand.  For example, the ancient Egyptians could not understand the movement of the sun so made up the tale that it was Ra’s fiery chariot racing through the sky.

Intelligent design is science and it starts with the data and attempts to find the best explanation.

This is even worse than the last argument, which is almost hard to believe.  Intelligent Design is not recognised as science and certainly does not meet the criteria to be regarded as science (it might rate as a hypothesis but even that is a pretty huge stretch).  This topic has been covered many times before so I will leave it there apart from saying the evidence is huge that ID is just creationism in a silly hat.

But what about a sunrise or sunset? What about majestic mountains? What about a brilliant blue sea? There is no utilitarian reason for these aspects of creation to be beautiful. I believe that the beauty of creation points to God.

I believe it points to magic invisible leprechauns who know how to paint really fast. Simply put, this  argument is not evidence of anything except the viewer not being blind.

But I have never heard of a person converting to atheism who as a result had a radically good change as to who they were as a person.

There are plenty of people, throughout history, who have had changed lives calling out to any number of deities.  The most pious, devout and goodly of men have worshipped deities such as Thor, Zeus and Ra.  That, in no way, vindicates claims for the existence of said deities.   There is another counter argument which simply goes along the lines of just because something makes you happy or satisfied or changes your behaviour does not mean it is true.

There are many other reasons to believe in God, but I will conclude with one last one. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a revelation of God.

Wow, talk about your circular logic. God is true because Jesus rose from the dead but Jesus would only have risen from the dead if he was an aspect of God.  Logical absurdity.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Stephen Bedard says:

    If you wish to disagree with me, that is fine. You are free to do that. However, I am not sure why you label my message as “creationist.” Creationism is a literal reading of Genesis 1 that claims that the world was created in six twent-four hour days and that it took place approximately six thousand years ago. No where in my message did I suggest such a thing. You label me as a creationist because they are easy targets. Continue to disagree if you wish, but at least be more careful in what I actually claim.

    • Arthur Ice says:

      He labeled you a creationist because you espouse a creation mythos. do you not know what your own mythology says about it? why else would you use ID? it’s creationism in a silly hat. oh look a creator made something…and um….science supports us if you squint your eyes real carefully turn your head to the side and selectively close your ears to anything that disagrees with you or that doesn’t make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

  2. guiltyhere says:

    Please Stephen…we all know intelligent design is just a cover for creationism….it’s so silly to pretend it’s not. Just a quick read from your blog says:

    “Intelligent design is science and it starts with the data and attempts to find the best explanation. What many people, not theologians but scientists, have discovered is that all life, including human life, seems too complex to occur without outside assistance.”

    This couldn’t be any more incorrect if you tried. ID is not science at all. It is not testible or verifiable. It makes claims based on the design argument which has been refuted many many times. Scientists are NOT saying that life is too complex to occur without outside assistance…thats just a lie. These types of ignorant arguements might work on your flock but they don’t work with individuals who look at the evidence.

  3. Shamelessly Atheist says:

    “Creationism is a literal reading of Genesis 1 that claims that the world was created in six twent-four hour days and that it took place approximately six thousand years ago.” No, this is not true. There are many brands of creationists. The moment you claim that God created everything, you label yourself as a creationist regardless of whether you are a young or old Earth creationist, or any one of a number of flavors of creationism.

  4. Matt says:

    Shamelessly Atheist already replied with what I was going to say. If you say ‘God did it’, then you’re a creationist.

  5. George says:

    The creationist demand to teach biblical myth alongside and as an alternative to scientific theory, specifically, Darwin’s theories of natural selection and evolution, is predicated upon neither evidence nor logic generally, but rather upon faith. As Christopher Hitchens, who can be insufferable asks, where would this end and why? Why just the biology class room and Christian extremist dogma? Why not in conjunction with chemistry also teach alchemy? Or how about astronomy followed by astrology? The straightforward answer is because that would be absurd and insulting to the intelligence of the teachers, the students and the general public (religious extremists notwithstanding), not to mention stultifying of the intellectual growth of American children already ranked rather poorly internationally.

    As comedian and columnist for the Independent, Mark Steel wrote, “[i]f all theories are given equal status, teachers could say: ‘Your essays on the cause of tornadoes were very good. Nathan’s piece detailing the impact of warm moist air colliding with cool air, with original sources from the Colorado Weather Bureau, contained some splendid detail. But Samatha’s piece that went ‘Because God is cross’ was just as good. So you all get a B+,’” thus humorously illustrating the “god of the gaps” fallacy as well as the sheer craziness and stupidity of the creationists.

  6. Garrett Oden says:

    I feel like you picked all the stupid things Creationists say (we all have our dumb moments).

  7. Matt says:

    I have yet to encounter what could possibly be possibly classed as a clever creationist argument.

  8. Stephen Bedard says:

    The problem I have is that you do not use creationism in a technical sense but in a rhetorical sense. Six day young earth creationists are easy targets and so if you can paint everyone who believes in some sort of ID, you can dismiss their beliefs without ever interacting with them.

    • Arthur Ice says:

      we can dismiss ID because it is not falsifiable (and hence both useless AND not science) directly contradicts what the evidence says (SINES, LINES, ERV’s, etc etc) and consists of a giant god of the gap argument coupled to an argument from ignorance.

      don’t understand how it can happen with evolution? ergo god!

      brilliant.

  9. Matt says:

    Intelligent design has yet to produce one shred of credible evidence to support it’s case. The same goes for creationism of any ilk.
    Until they do, all people can do and be intellectually honest is dismiss them.

  10. mario says:

    Mr bedard, sir you do not seem to understand the difference between belief and fact. Most of your beliefs have not been backed up by facts ( the existence of egiptians is a fact; while the plagues they suffered have not been proven yet). Now science has a great quantity of evidence from many different fields that point to evolution for example. I am confident that when they find evidence for the plagues or the ark or god himself, they will let us all know. I have also seen ID proponents completely ignore facts that have been proven sometimes, for a hundred years….Now sir, I ask you; who do you think I will believe?

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