callistahogan | (no subject)

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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.