Why Creationism is Logically Indefensible.

by Pitt Griffin on October 20, 2013 · 0 comments

in Religion, Science

We may yet discover that the theory of evolution is not correct, but we already know that creationism is a fiction. It boils down to the scientific method.

A 1.8 million year old hominid skull (or - as young earth creationists would have it - a skull of no creature currently living put underground by God in the last 6,000 years).

A 1.8 million year old hominid skull (or – as young earth creationists would have it – a skull of no creature currently living put underground by God in the last 6,000 years).

A story reported in the NY Times illustrates my point. Eight years ago paleontologists discovered a 1.8-million-year-old, hominid skull in the Republic of Georgia. Years of studying it have led to the conclusion that human ancestry may be simpler than believed; other hominid fossils, once thought to have belonged to different species may, in fact, be different forms of fewer species.

The lesson here is that when a new fact does not fit a scientific theory, the theory must be tweaked to accommodate it. Sometimes new facts compel a theory to be discarded and replaced, which is why scientists – and other reasonable people – no longer believe that the earth is flat or that it is the center of the universe. (Itself a modern discovery)

There is no science that has remained unchanged since biblical times. There was no understanding of the germ theory of disease. There are no doctors in the Bible – or physicists. There was no knowledge of microscopic life, let alone atomic particles.

Modern metallurgy, chemistry, biology, geology were years in the future. Gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces would have been beyond comprehension. String theory? The ancients thought the moon produced its own light.

And yet creationists cling to the divine theory of life creation. They may dress it up as “intelligent design” and say that it was not God but an intelligent designer that made us. But that is a difference without a distinction.

I am not going to describe here the overwhelming proofs of evolution. Nor am I going to discuss how the creationist challenges to evolutionary theory are without merit. There are many scientific books and articles that do the job well.

The only point I make here is one of logic. Creationists create “science” from a book which no actual scientist would pay the least attention to as a scientific text.

"How did we get here?" "I don't know there are two different stories".

Adam, “How did we get here?”
Eve, “I don’t know, there are two different stories”.

Fundamental religious types defend their position by claiming that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. How do they know? Because the Bible says so.

However let’s ignore that creationists’ circular logic and agree, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Then its inconsistencies, and poor description of the natural world, make God look terribly ignorant of his own creation.

And if the Bible is the word of God, it has to be asked what he was smoking. He is terribly repetitious and self-contradictory. In the first two books of Genesis alone, He gives two completely different creation stories. It seems far more likely that the Bible is a human construction.

To base a scientific theory on that Bible – in this case Creationism – is logically indefensible.

Previous post:

Next post: