Creationism Is ‘Science’ Through the Looking Glass.

by Pitt Griffin on December 3, 2014 · 0 comments

in Evolution, Religion

“Science knows it doesn’t know everything; otherwise, it’d stop. But just because science doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.” Dara Ó Briain

Christian Creationists are a rum lot. They do science in a mirror. The usual process of arriving at a truth is to start with an hypothesis suggested by the facts. And then through experimentation, analysis and prediction either reject the hypothesis or prove it to a degree where it becomes a Theory. Which in science is a truth beyond any reasonable doubt. Just as a Theorem is in math. The Theory of Gravity is a good example.

Creationists start with a ‘truth’ – in this case the Theory of Creationism. This simply states that anyone who uses their eyes – duh – can see that the universe – and the life in it – is far too complex to have been produced by the blind processes of evolution. So there must have been a creator. Which in creation speak establishes the ‘what’ of creation.

The next step is to answer the ‘who, when, where, why and how’.

And luckily for them that’s covered in the Bible – specifically the first eleven chapters of Genesis. How do they know that the Bible is the right book? Because God wrote it. How do they know that God wrote it? Because in the book, it says He did.

And there you have it. Except of course you don’t. That’s not the way science works.

In science you may not ignore facts that make your theory untenable. Creationists try to knock holes in evolutionary theory with such scientific sounding claims as “irreducible complexity”* – which has been shown time and again to be a red herring. And it’s not enough for creationists to ding evolution; they must explain away why all the natural sciences support evolution, while none of them give an iota of credence to creationism.

Notorious among creationism proponents is Ken Ham, the founder of the ‘creation Museum’. He distills his philosophy into “Answers in Genesis”. It is his only source of ‘truth’ for the origins of the universe and man. Does this seem like a man open to new ideas? Every good scientist harbors doubt. He fears that tomorrow may bring that fact that shatters his beliefs. But he accepts the possibility.

Ham admits of no such concerns. He ‘knows’ his book is right and as such he doesn’t need to do anything more. His only labor in the vineyards is to further refine the sophistry of his arguments. So that he may keep challenging the ongoing discoveries that every year add layer upon layer of evidence for the unplanned – and ancient – development of life.

Evolution is not an atheist conspiracy. It is not a religion. Catholics and mainstream Protestants accept it as gospel. Its reality is rooted in facts not faith. It is disprovable – any fact that controverts its structure of proof will bring the whole thing down.

Creationism, on the other hand, is a religious conspiracy, with not a scientific bone in its body.


*Irreducible complexity is the hypothesis that complex structures such as the eye, or bacteria’s flagella – or complex processes, such as blood clotting cannot be products of evolution. Creationists say that if one part of the eye is removed the eye doesn’t work. They argue that Evolution does not allow for structures that don’t work on the off chance the future will add something that will enable it to work.

However, biologists have consistently discovered the evolutionary line that leads to complex structures. In the case of the eye, it starts with light sensitive skin cells, which invaginate etc.



Previous post:

Next post: