(no subject)

[callistahogan]

New Scientist Brings Up Old Arguments

The above link is a response to Evolution: 24 Myths and Misconceptions published by New Scientist by Answers in Genesis, probably the most successful creationist site ever made. 

From the beginning of the article, it rubs me the wrong way.

For example, in the first few paragraphs it states:

Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth.

And yet despite an ever-growing mountain of evidence, most people around the world are not taught the truth about evolution, if they are taught about it at all. Even in the UK, the birthplace of Darwin with an educated and increasingly secular population, one recent poll suggests less than half the population accepts evolution.

Disregarding the fact that they call evolution a firmly established scientific fact, there are a lot of issues I have with this article. For one thing, it claims that most people are not taught the truth about evolution—which is true, but not in the ways they say it is. These statements imply that, since less than half of Britain accepts evolution, they aren't being taught the "truth" about it. It also claims that those who don't accept evolution are not "educated," at least in its implications.

Then, in the last portion of the introduction, it states this:

For those who have never had the opportunity to find out about biology or science, claims made by those who believe in supernatural alternatives to evolutionary theory can appear convincing. Meanwhile, even among those who accept evolution, misconceptions abound.

Most of us are happy to admit that we do not understand, say, string theory in physics, yet we are all convinced we understand evolution. In fact, as biologists are discovering, its consequences can be stranger than we ever imagined. Evolution must be the best-known yet worst-understood of all scientific theories.

Implications are abound in these two paragraphs. Firstly, it states that those who believe in creation "have never had the opportunity to find out about biology and science." It implies that it can "appear convincing" only because people don't know anything about biology and science.

For me, personally, that's an insult. Most of the people that know me in real life or over the Internet know that I have studied creation and evolution fanatically for the past year or so. Last year, I spent months poring over the evidence for evolution, copying it down, reading it, watching videos about it, and this year, I've studied it even more, even from the evolutionists' point of view.

So, to say that I don't know science and biology, even when I've spent the past few years studying it, stings. In fact, I have a feeling I understand science and biology—at least in the case of evolution—better than anyone else my age, and maybe more so than people twice my age.

As Answers in Genesis states, apparently those who don't accept evolution somehow don't understand it. Of course, it's amazing how they used the string theory as an example—I don't understand the string theory entirely, yet I accept it. I don't understand how gravity works, yet I accept it. So, simply not understanding it is not the only reason why I do not accept evolution.

But that's sadly an argument a lot of people use. Since I don't accept evolution, a lot of people say "Oh, well, you don't accept it because you don't understand it" or "You're not a scientist, so you can't possibly understand all of it." Or the worst: "You're only a teenager and a simple writer at that, so you can't understand something as complicated as evolution!"

It's sad, but this is only the beginning of the misconceptions about those who don't accept evolution. I haven't even gotten into the misconceptions yet, and I'm already steaming.

I'm vexed by this misconception: Creationism is a Coherent Alternative to Evolution. Normally I wouldn't be so upset about this, because, you know, creation is, but the way that New Scientist goes on to bash the Bible and try to refute it without knowing the first thing about it bothers me.

The only thing that creationists agree on is that they don't like evolution. Even Genesis gives two contradictory accounts of creation.

I can't believe how stupid that argument is. It implies strongly that creationist only reject evolution because "they don't like" it. That's like saying that... well, let's say that I don't like the fact that the earth is round. That doesn't mean that I'll go around saying that the earth is flat and ignoring all the science pointing to the spherical shape of the earth. In fact, though, that argument could be turned around onto their heads—"Aha! You don't accept creation, so that just means that you don't like it! How stupid you are!"

Just like evolutionists accept evolution because they see the science, most creationists accept creation because they see the science. Of course, we see two different sciences, and creationists accept that. Like Ken Ham once said, evolutionists and creationists are looking through at the world through different glasses: evolutionists look at it through the naturalistic, materialistic glasses, whereas creationists look at the world as declaring God's glory. Although, since there can't be two contradictory sciences that are both correct, one of them has to be correct. Personally, the evidence toward evolution is flimsy at best, nonexistent at worst (IN MY OPINION), whereas the evidence for creation is absolutely overwhelming.

As for the two different creation accounts in Genesis, I don't want this post to go on too long, so I'm linking you to a couple of pages—Two Creation Accounts? and Genesis Contradictions?. There are obviously many more on this topic, but they all say that Genesis 1 and 2 are not contradictory.

Admittedly, there are many different creation stories, depending on what belief system you are looking at it. However, the one thing that we agree on is not that we don't like evolution, but rather that we believe that a god created the world.

And then, there are the "creationist misconceptions." Not surprisingly, the first link is The Theory is Wrong Because the Bible is 'Inerrant'. Once again, it begins with a false accusation:

This argument is undermined by the hundreds of errors and inaccuracies found in the Bible. It is anything but "inerrant".

I'm willing to bet money that the only reason that they said the Bible is full of errors is because they heard it from someone else, or they read it themselves in hopes of finding errors, not in hopes of actually understanding it. Each time someone states that the Bible is full of errors, guess what happens? Something happens to prove that the Bible was the final authority, and that what it said is easily proven by science.

Those so-called contradictions? Yeah, they're easily explained. If you read the link I posted at the beginning, Answers in Genesis easily explains them with no effort. If those links aren't enough, try visiting Biblical 'Contradictions' Refuted, Chronology Conundrums, Do Rabbits Chew Their Cud?, Does the Bible Say Pi Equals 3.0?, and Did Bible Writers Believe the Earth was Flat?. If those links aren't enough, though, there are plenty where those came from.

The only thing that really wasn't that bad was this paragraph:

A few creationists are honest enough to admit that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is irrelevant as far as they are concerned: as it contradicts the "Word of God", it simply has to be wrong.

For some people, that is true—some Christians don't accept evolution purely because it refutes the Bible. However, that is not the reason why all creationists reject evolution. After all, the site said that there are many different types of creationists, so lumping them into the category Biblical Creationists is unfair. There are many other reasons why I believe that evolution is wrong, not simply because it refutes the Bible. There are so many things that I could refute further, but this post is long enough—I'm going to have to use a cut so that it doesn't spam the F-lists—so I'll stop this post right here.

Before I stop, though...

I know that this post is going to rub some people the wrong way and it might dissolve into an argument. I don't mean to single mercuryblue144out, but there have been.... issues between us whenever we bring this up, so if you could kindly keep it as civil as possible, it would be much appreciated. If you want to get into a debate, please don't respond, or at least not on the public comment thread. If you wish to debate, then please send me a message via LJ, YIM, email, or in case of Clan, any other way you can think of.

Thank you.

Comments

[alexseanchai]

I don't intend to start a debate, or really even a discussion. I just have one exceedingly dumb question.

Just how stupid do you think scientists are?

And it is not as though it is impossible to simultaneously believe in creation and accept science, any more than it's impossible to believe evolution is the hand of a patient God in action. One must simply accept that in dictating the Bible to human scribes, God used metaphor here and there, for the benefit of his early audience who defined anything equal to or greater than 'thousand' as 'many beyond count' and thus had no way to distinguish between several thousand and several billion.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

Actually, I don't think scientists are stupid at all. In fact, I readily accept natural selection--the strongest of a kind living to go and reproduce. That is something that we can easily see, and something that I would be a fool not to accept. I do think, however, that in evolution, there is flimsy evidence, and many of the evidence that has already been contradicted by *science* is still used while being taught evolution.

For example, we're taught embryology, which basically says that a human embryo goes through its evolutionary history in the mother's womb. That was refuted decades ago. Yet, where is it? Still in our science textbooks.

I agree with you that it's not impossible to believe in creation and accept science--that was what the entire entry was all about. In the Christian faith, however, if you take the Bible the way it was written, and the way it was taken for more than 2,000 years, there is no way to even consider it being metaphorical. With the Genesis story, why would God use metaphor *anyway*? Wouldn't that have to be *clearest* so that the people reading it know *exactly* where they came from?

There are some people that do accept evolution and the Bible, but in doing so, they're basically saying they don't believe in Genesis, where it says that God created everyone *from their own kind*. So, yes. It's not impossible, but it's Biblically incorrect.

Besides, what I was trying to say in this entry is basically: Christians and creationists aren't stupid. Try to stop making us out to be anti-science, Bible-thumping idiots. :)

[alexseanchai]

Natural selection is biological evolution.

Textbooks, especially below college level, are notoriously slow about getting inaccurate information corrected. Anyway, human embryos do, at various stages, resemble embryos of species that resemble earlier evolutionary stages of humans. Saying human embryos reenact evolutionary history history is inaccurate, yes, but it gets the general idea across to children who will just be confused by a more accurate explanation.

Your entire entry was about rejecting every bit of astronomy, archaeology, biology, geology, and that's just for starters, every bit of a hell of a lot of sciences that agree that human civilization emerged well before 4004 BC, that life is hundreds of millions of years old at least, that the planet is four and a half billion years old, that the universe is thirteen point seven billion years old.

Extended metaphor. And don't tell me the Israelites wouldn't have boggled at and refused to believe the idea that their earliest ancestors resembled the invisible things that gave them diseases. Also, read Asimov's short story "How It Happened".

I know that many, perhaps most, Christians, and many, perhaps most, people who believe the universe was created by a supernatural being, are not stupid. I do, however, have questions about anyone who insists on the factual truth of what started out as a Babylonian creation myth.

(Note the qualification factual truth. Stories don't have to be factual to be true. Read Gerald Schroeder's The Science of God, too.)

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

Okay, okay, stop RIGHT THERE.

"Your entire entry was about rejecting every bit of astronomy, archaeology, biology, geology, and that's just for starters, every bit of a hell of a lot of sciences that agree that human civilization emerged well before 4004 BC."

And you wonder why I don't want to debate with you. Beth, my entire entry was pointing out that creationists are NOT idiots and against science! You are essentially saying that I am rejecting any piece of SCIENCE, which was what I was trying to REFUTE. There is evidence toward the world being younger than it appears, and there is evidence in astronomy, archaeology, biology, and geology that point toward creation being correct.

And I find it offensive that you call the Genesis account of creation a "Babylonian creation myth."

And natural selection is change WITHIN A KIND. There has been NO evidence pointing toward changes in a kind making certain creatures turn into different creatures. I'm sorry, but there hasn't.

This is turning into a debate, anyway, when I specifically asked you not to make it turn into a debate. And this time, you *are* being disrespectful of my beliefs.

[alexseanchai]

You refuted it poorly.

If the Genesis story didn't start as a Babylonian creation myth, it started as a Sumerian creation myth. Babylonian's more likely.

No, you're not going to see fish turn into alligators, or fish eggs hatch alligators, or whatever you think evolution says is supposed to happen. Nor did any such thing happen at any point in the past. Biological evolution is natural selection over the millions of years you don't think passed.

I am not attempting to disrespect your religious and philosophical beliefs, except where your religious and philosophical beliefs pretend to be empirical truth with support from empirical evidence.

Believe God created the universe if you like. I can't refute that and won't try. The past few hundred years of scientific inquiry have, however, quite thoroughly refuted the ideas that the processes God used to create the universe ran their course over a few days rather than over billions of years.

And for heaven's sake, what is so hard to accept about the idea that Genesis 1 makes use of the same metaphor used in Psalms and 1 Peter, that a thousand years—'thousand' being synonymous with 'many beyond count', much as 'million' or 'billion' or 'zillion' often is today, as they didn't have any higher counting words—to humans is a single day to God?

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

After this comment, I am going to block you. I am sorry, but you are being deliberately disrespectful. I asked you quite nicely to keep things to yourself if you were going to debate, and you refused. I asked you to be civil; you refused. This is the last straw.

Genesis is not a "myth." You could at least have the decency to *pretend* that it DOES have some basis in fact. You could at least pretend to be respectful of my beliefs. But no, you can't.

As for your third paragraph, I still find it amazing that you think I know nothing about creation and evolution. Like I said in the original post, I have STUDIED this. I know exactly what evolution is. I know exactly what it does, and what it masquerades itself as. For the past few years, I have studied this, and know pretty much everything possible there is to know about it.

As for this:

"I am not attempting to disrespect your religious and philosophical beliefs, except where your religious and philosophical beliefs pretend to be empirical truth with support from empirical evidence."

How can you possibly think that that *isn't* disrespecting my beliefs. You are saying EXACTLY what New Scientist was saying--you are saying that creation has no basis in science, and that those who believe in Genesis are stupid and against science. My beliefs are NOT pretending. They have plenty of scientific backing, yet you can't or won't see it.

And I'm sorry, but modern science hasn't refuted the idea that someone CREATED life instead of it coming out of naturalistic processes. Science hasn't refuted the idea that a higher power created life. Science supports creation. It even supports natural selection, otherwise known as microevolution, even though it falls apart when trying to prove macroevolution.

As for your last paragraph, it is hard to accept because it is NOT the truth! Genesis was NOT meant to be taken metaphorically. Every single person who has truly studied Genesis, and even someone who looks at it with an open mind, knows that it should be taken literally. Genesis does not use metaphorical language--it is a written account, one that is supposed to take literally, whereas Psalms and the section in 1 Peter was POETIC language, MADE to be taken metaphorically. There is a world of difference between the two.

[nanuq459.livejournal.com]

The movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" talks about this controversy a bit. I'd recommend it to anyone--even you, Beth.
The disdain felt for so-called mainstream scientists for even the concept of Intelligent Design is palpable. Surprising, considering it fits quite nicely into even Darwinian theories. No one knows for certain how life began--even top scientists admit they don't know for sure. And the odds of the necessary components for life to arise coming together randomly are about as likely as a random set of parts coming together to make a 747. There's clearly a hand behind it.
And the Darwinists do little to refute the actual theory of ID, all they do is attack the proponents, deny them tenure, and so on. Seriously, see "Expelled," it explains it more clearly than I can.

[wheatear.livejournal.com]

Just like evolutionists accept evolution because they see the science, most creationists accept creation because they see the science.

Thing is, I don't think they do. Creationism is essentially a metaphysical position. The Christian belief in their particular brand of creationism comes from the Bible - which, of course, is not what you'd call a scientific text. The science of creationism, such as it is, comes after, when creationists attempt to justify their beliefs through science.

Personally, the evidence toward evolution is flimsy at best, nonexistent at worst (IN MY OPINION).

If the evidence for evolution is so weak, I would expect to see a hell of a lot more scientists arguing against it - not just the creationists who clearly have an agenda, but atheistic and agnostic scientists too. This does not seem to be the case.

About the two different Genesis accounts... one thing I've always wondered is why there are two different accounts in the first place. I guess there must be some historical reason - perhaps two different writers wrote different versions of the same story and somehow they both ended up in there.