A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions

From Abracadabra to Zombies

reader comments: Creationism and Creation Science

11 May 2000
It seems to me that the real problem with atheistic evolution is it comes up dry in dealing with 99% of human experience: joy, love, pain, hope, fear, courage, vision, beauty, horror. When I look into the face of my wife or child scientific arguments against God's existence or creation suddenly become absurd.

Tim S Rodkey

reply: I'm surprised you list horror with beauty. I'd put horror with the other 1%. When I look at a picture of conjoined infants or read about such things as cloacal exstrophy I find the thought of an All-Good Omnipotent Being absurd. These are just feelings, though. There are no "scientific" arguments against God's existence or creationism. 


31 Mar 2000
I was just reading your creationism entry yesterday, so it was kind of funny that I found this session on the Washington Post's site today.
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/00/ham0331.htm

This guy's [Ken Ham] ability to dodge intelligent questions, and throw the burden of proof on the person asking, is downright amazing. People like this make me insane; I couldn't even read this whole thing. Demanding that others be specific, while spouting out generalities and telling people to read the news, is (IMO) one of the more annoying tactics of creationists and hard-right conservatives.

Thought you might find it interesting. I thoroughly enjoy your site; keep up the good work.
Carl D. Orr

reply: Mr. Ham seems to have all the answers and no questions about the Bible.


31 Mar 2000 
You said under your "creationism" page

They loudly proclaim that evolution is just a theory and that it is false. Scientific theories are neither true nor false. They are explanations of facts. That species evolved from other species is considered by 99.99% of the scientific community to be a scientific fact. How species evolved is what a theory of evolution is supposed to explain.

At one time 99.9% of the scientific community believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This was a "fact". It was wrong. A majority does not make anything fact.

reply: No. The majority of all people once believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. When that was true, science had not yet emerged. I am aware that something does not become true because of how many people believe it. Are you aware, however, that when 99.9% of all scientists believe that an ancient idea no longer has merit and that a new idea is supported by the evidence that to reject the view in favor of tradition is not reasonable?

The Theory of Evolution is NOT simply the theory of species transition, but how all life came in to existence.

reply: No. Evolution is not a theory as to how life came into existence.

The FACT is that we are here, we exist. (We're not gods who have forgotten we are god nor do we think that everything is an illusion) Evolution does not provide an adequate mechanism to overcome abiogenesis [the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter], the lack of transition forms, and irreducible complexity.
Jim

reply: And nothing can overcome your non sequitur thinking, either.


9 Mar 2000
Christianity and Creationism are perfectly "falsifiable". Show me one "transitional fossil" and you've "falsified" Creationism and Christianity.

reply: Not true. Christianity is perfectly compatible with transitional fossils and evolutionary theory. The vast majority of Christians do not believe that evolution contradicts the Bible. Creationism only requires a belief in a Creator, not a belief in myths as literal truths.

 "Theistic Evolution" is an oxymoron; Are you one?

reply: Very clever. Did you think that one up by yourself?

Also, show me how the theory of evolution is falsifiable, and we'll take it out of the realm of "pseudoscience".

reply: Theories are falsified by making predictions from them and then seeing whether the predictions come true. Well, it's not really that simple, but this may go over your head. By prediction we mean deduction from the theory of some particular empirical facts or observations. One theory of evolution is Darwin's theory of natural selection. If the evidence supports the view that species evolve quickly and simultaneously, this theory would be falsified. 

I doubt that this is what you have in mind, since you probably do not recognize the difference between a fact and a theory. That species have evolved from other species is a fact; a theory of evolution tries to explain how they evolved.

By-the-way, until the mid 1800's, 99.99% of scientists believed "spontaneous generation", or "life from non-life" to be a "fact". That "fact" was proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt by Louis Pasteur, a true scientist, and Creationist, by-the-way. Just because, as you said, "That species evolved from other species is considered by 99.99% of the scientific community to be a scientific fact", doesn't make it a fact. Oh, wait, I forgot, as an evolutionist, you must believe in spontaneous generation! You must believe that inanimate chemicals developed by chance into highly complex, living single celled organisms. Ironic isn't it? Inconceivable, isn't it? To be proven wrong by a Creationist Scientist! The horror!

reply: The horror is that you think you are making sense. As I noted in the response to the letter prior to yours: I am aware that something does not become true because of how many people believe it. Are you aware, however, that when 99.9% of all scientists believe that an ancient idea no longer has merit and that a new idea is supported by the evidence that to reject the view in favor of tradition is not reasonable?

The attached is a list of Self-Professed Bible Believing Creationist Scientists of the past, though you may not recognize the names, since you are obviously not a scientist or a student of the sciences. (See attached file: Bible Believing Scientists of The Past.doc)

reply: I thought you understood that popularity, even among Bible-thumping scientists, does not have any bearing on the truth of an idea. I guess not.

I've also attached an article discussing the latest highly publicized attempt to prove evolution through a so-called "transitional fossil". This is science? Must Read! (See attached file: Archeoraptor Feathered Dinosaur from National Geographic Doesn't Fly.doc)

reply: You are wrong in characterizing the article about fossils linking birds and dinosaurs as an attempt to prove evolution. Your hero, Steven A. Austin, Ph.D. of the Institute for Creation Research, sees the issue like you do, i.e., as a person uninterested in science but interested in defending dogma. It is certainly legitimate to challenge the conclusions of a scientist, but that is not what Austin is interested in. He sees the work of scientists as attacks on his fundamentalist religious views and frames scientific work as if it were propaganda. From this perspective, a scientist never errs: he must be a fraud if he defends a view contrary to your naive understanding of Scripture. Characters like you and Austin think that every time a scientist errs, your simplistic notions about the origin and nature of the universe are strengthened. Nonsense. In logic this is called the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. If you want to see how a real scientist disagrees with another real scientist examine how Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing criticized the National Geographic story and then look at how National Geographic responded.

I read somewhere on your webpage that you are a philosopher? Well here's some serious philosophy for you. See attachment. (See attached file: The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe by William Lane Craig.)

reply: The argument is a rehash of the traditional cosmological argument for God's existence: the world can't be eternal and must have had a cause, that cause must be God. Nonsense. If the universe can't be eternal, then neither can God. Something must have caused God to exist and God's Creator needs a cause, too, ad infinitum. If God did exist as a perfect being there would be no creation, for creation requires change and change is imperfection. So, if God exists, God is imperfect, but by definition God is perfect, therefore.....

Oh, if you're short of cash, and since you're so confident that evolution is backed by true science, you might check this out; there's a guy who runs a website called DRDINO.com [now called Creation Science Evangelism], who's giving away $250,000 to anyone who can offer true empirical proof of evolution being a fact! It's legitimate! And imagine, since 1990 when he started the offer with $10,000, no one has ever been able to claim the prize! You would think with all the "proof", that people would be lining up, wouldn't you?

It has truly been a pleasure. I pray you read this, and the attachments.
Steve Taylor

reply: Dr. Hovind requires that one "Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution...is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence." Given this requirement, no one will ever claim the prize. There are theoretically an infinite number of explanations for any set of phenomena; hence, it is impossible to show that a particular theory of evolution (or any other theory, for that matter) is the only possible explanation for observed phenomena.


17 Mar 1997
Try applying your own skepticism to Evolution. I studied many religions and philosophies over the years, and Evolutionism is too dogmatic for my taste. I refer to it as a religion because it mirrors the worst of most religions: it ignores evidence to support what it chooses to call fact. I believe that the world was created but not in the so-called scientific creation theory, because there is simply too much that is not known. I wish scientists would be scientific; instead of accepting so many inconsistencies and fallacies in their evolutionary natural god religion they would turn Occam's razor upon it and learn the truth.

reply: I have applied skepticism to the theory of evolution. Theories aren't dogmatic; people are. Maybe you don't like scientists and prefer the company of religionists. In any case, you don't seem to know much about evolutionary scientists if you think they ignore evidence and wallow in inconsistencies and fallacies. And since you do not believe in scientific creationism, I take it you have written to express your disagreement with everyone.

I am religious, I believe in God. I believe he created the world because I don't believe in art without an artist and I don't believe in billions of fortunate accidents lining up on their own. I recall the Piltdown man and the Nebraska man and the ease with which scientists are fooled into accepting whatever fits their prejudices.

reply: You can believe what you want, but it would be nice to have some reasons for those beliefs. For example, why do you believe God is a "he"? What does art have to do with creation? Are you trying to defend the argument from design? Next we ramble on to Piltdown. First of all, it wasn't easy to fool all scientists: it was easy to fool some scientists. Is it because science is not infallible that you don't like it?

In reading your various rebuttals I notice that you rhetorically ask if anyone believes in a conspiracy among scientists. There's no conspiracy (unless you want to count Socialists). The simple reason scientists believe evolution is because so many others do. If they do not they will be ridiculed and excommunicated as heretics.

reply: You certainly do have the answers to all my questions. I was wondering why they believed a theory which seems so sensible. It couldn't possible be because of the evidence. Fear of ridicule and excommunication! Thank you!

All the great Atheists of the past, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc. are enough of a reason to doubt their so-called scientific socialism and the evolutionary theory upon which it is based. Instead of defending your dogma, turn your skepticism towards it and see what you find. I know it's hard to question your faith, but I do it myself all the time, even when I'm sitting in church. I look for constant reaffirmation, and spend all my spare time learning everything I can. All I learn affirms my faith, rather than harms it.

reply: Don't forget Democritus, Epicurus, d'Holbach, Marx, Bertrand Russell, etc. They were pretty great atheists, too. Anyway, I can tell by your writing and reasoning that you are constantly questioning my faith and looking for reaffirmation of your own.

Is it so much to ask of an Evolutionist? Is this to be the only religion never asked to question their dogmas?

reply: I don't know. I'll have to ask the elders of the congregation next time we go to temple.

I enjoy your page very much, and hope you'll continue. It's very interesting.
Jim Wilson

reply: thank you. I am left nonplussed by your note but I wish you well, too.


13 Mar 1997
Consider that of the 7 billion fossil specimens collected that not one has demonstrated the "transitional form". Scientific method mandates that a "theory" and even a hypothesis be testable. Evolution as it is commonly conceived is not so. If one is familiar with statistical analysis, then one recognizes the blaring fact that the theory of  evolution requires more faith than does the notion of a Designer.
Karen Reed 

reply: What may seem blaring to a religious creationist may seem inaudible to a scientific evolutionist. I guess it would be too much to hope for to expect the religiously trained to know the difference between religious faith and empirical belief: the former maintains its positions regardless of the evidence; the latter changes its positions as the evidence and reasonable probabilities dictate.

Your revelation that evolution is not testable should win you the Nobel Prize for theological arrogance. Your first sentence implies evolution is testable and is likely false since what you believe is predicted by theory has not been established. If there is some other sense to "testing a scientific theory" besides "drawing empirical predictions from the theory which, if validated by experience, confirm the theory," then you have a scoop worthy of your prize.

As for the "transitional form" you mention, I suppose you are referring to the so-called "missing link." I thought it had been established that Jerry Falwell is not only a fossil but the exact fossil you are referring to. Seriously, what kind of transitional form are you looking for? A fish with wings? A bird which swims? A mammal which lays eggs? A monkey who writes bad poetry?

In any case, there are many thoughtful theists who find evolution quite compatible with the notion of a Designer. Of course, they may all have failed statistics.


13 Mar 1997
I simply can NOT believe the absolute best example of "the pot calling the kettle black" that I have ever witnessed in my life. I was an evolutionist all my life (as dogmatic as you can imagine) and to say that creation science is not falsifiable and that it uses propaganda over evidence is exactly that---propaganda. Through my entire scholastic experience I heard almost nothing from creationists at all, but spouted out propaganda that evolutionists SOMEWHERE had real proof of evolution.

reply: You either are not very old or you have not had much experience. There are greater pots than I which await your kettle. I can't imagine you were ever dogmatic! Your tone seems so tentative. But I will grant you that what is called education from the internal perspective looks like propoganda from the external perspective. I don't know what your scholastic experience was, but I take it that it did not include any evolutionary biology courses.

However, when I examined the claims of a Ph.D. creationist on the fossil record, I found that the ONLY thing evolutionists (including myself) had was empty, harsh, propaganda. And two weeks after I defended evolution ON THE RADIO from the statements of a creationist I was convinced by the fossil record and the highly skirted issue of radiometric dating that I was never fed the whole truth by the evolutionist establishment.

reply: perhaps you a deep feeder and the establishment only caters to surface feeders. It is refreshing to know that you awoke from your dogmatic slumber by reading a Ph.D. creationist. It wasn't the illustrious Duane Gish, was it?

The EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE in support of special creation that I personally have examined or those I know includes literally SCORES of human skeletons excavated in cretaceous (or older) layers. Human artifacts in the same. Clearly human tracks both bare and soled in layers fossilized along with dinosaur tracks and even with trilobites! Evolutionists answer---hoax PROPAGANDA.

reply: With this great discovery of yours you should publish a book or at least get your own public television series. This is startling! Or are you going to maintain that the entire scientific community is conspiring against the spread of your truths, for fear they will lose their stranglehold on government grants?

Creationists rebuttal---tracks were excavated ON FILM under thick sandstone layers and one was even sliced by a university and demonstrated that the CLEARLY human track contained underlying fossilized impressions of the surface impression. I examined them myself and if these aren't human tracks than we don't have human feet! Very large and clear mammal tracks in the same. That's just the evidence in my PERSONAL scope. These alone are enough for a TRULY objective person to either reject the entire claim of evolutionary geology or at least do as I and drive halfway across the country to examine the evidence for yourself.

reply: I've seen the film and read about the so-called human tracks found alongside dinosaur tracks. I guess I am just too dim to see the light as you have. Maybe I should watch reruns of the Flintstones to get into the objective frame of mind.

As for the accusation of using only propaganda I have some advice for you---those who live in glass houses should not throw stones at those who live in brick houses with a few windows.
Brad Panassow 
P.S. Oh, by the way, did I mention that that some of the excavations are documented on film? Nova filmed one of them. I guess that rules out more hoax propaganda. Nova is not a creation establishment. P.S.S. Creationists aren't the ones trying to make a monkey out of you.

reply: Thanks for the advice, Brad. Only, you should remember that the stones and glass houses thing only works for red brick, not delusional brick. In any case, words sometimes can be more effective than stones.
p.s. Are you trying to suggest that Nova used the film of the so-called Flintstone human tracks to support your notions? If so, you are being sneaky and tricky, and that is not very nice, even from an objective scholar with noble goals.


2 Apr 1996
I got into your dictionary from the Dianetics page, but I disagree with your treatment of "Creation Science". As a fellow sceptic, I look at things through a microscope, but have to look at evolution as an unproven theorem. NOTE: My e-mail does not suggest an argument, but rather a point that as a fellow sceptic, you should be as sceptical of theories as religious beliefs.
GABBY

reply: My theory is that theories are not the kind of thing that can be proven or disproven. Theories are explanations. Theoretically, the number of explanations for any event is unlimited. However, some explanations are more plausible than others. For example, if the Mona Lisa were discovered in someone's cellar which of the following explanations would you think is most plausible?

(a) human beings physically removed and made an unauthorized transfer of the painting
(b) aliens from another planet removed and transferred the painting
(c) the painting appeared miraculously in the cellar
(d) the painting was transferred there by Uri Gellar using only the power of his mind to manipulate physical reality (psychokinesis)

I maintain that of these four explanations, theft is more plausible than extraterrestrial, miraculous or psychic event. I think any reasonable person would agree. I hope you would agree. We may never be able to prove theory (a), but it is still the most plausible and reasonable.

Likewise with evolution vs. creationism: evolution is a more plausible and reasonable explanation of species than is special creation. We can't prove either theory.

My theory is that religious writings such as the Bible originated for spiritual and social purposes, not to teach science. But if one wants to treat Genesis as if it were a scientific theory and match it with natural selection, I think any reasonable person, skeptic or not, would select natural selection as more plausible.


I was looking around the Internet when I found your dictionary. It certainly is an odd dictionary. Most dictionaries don't rant when they give a definition. I guess yours is a philosophical dictionary.

I am famous for my ranting. Fortunately, my critics never rant, so we balance each other out.

I started out by looking up Creationism. As you might guess, I am a Creationist. What you may not guess is that I am an uneducated Creationist, that is, I'm still working on my Bachelor's degree.

I never would have guessed that, but then I am a skeptic so what else would you expect?

I think your definition of Creationism was fine for the first 2 paragraphs or so. You began to say odd and irrelevant things after that.

Thanks. I'm also well known for saying odd and irrelevant things.

I think that your definition splits in half once one realizes that you have two meanings for the term "evolution."

Better my definition should split in half than I should do so!

You say so yourself. You believe that it is a fact that it has occurred, but it is a theory how it occurred.

That's right, but this has nothing to do with split definitions, whatever they might be. What I said was that just about the entire scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact, but that they do not agree as to how evolution occurred.

When someone argues about evolution, we need to know whether they are discussing the historical event or the mechanism. I believe this is a key to everything else that I would say about your article.

You are right!

The corollary in Creationism also exists, which you do not acknowledge. We would say that it is a fact that God created the Universe.

Many evolutionists would also say that they believe God created the Universe.

What you seem not to know is that there is a lot of lively debate on the Ph.D. level trying to discover how the Creation occurred. Indeed, there is even an annual competition for technical Creationist papers. Have you ever heard of Dr. Russ Humphreys or Ken Ham? Perhaps not.

I must admit my ignorance of these gentleman but I will take your word for it that they write lively papers as they debate how creation occurred. I doubt that these papers are of any interest to the scientific community, however.

You said that "One sign that an idea is not scientific is the claim that the idea is absolutely certain and irrefutable." You quote Gould as saying, "I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs." Of course, Dr. Gould means the "how" of evolution, because you will never doubt that it is a fact that evolution occurred. It is only the "how" that you will doubt.

I never say 'never' (except of course when I say I never say 'never'), but I agree that it is highly unlikely I will come to doubt evolution has occurred.

That was a clever bait-and-switch you pulled there. I might not have caught it if you hadn't alerted me to the two meanings you give to the word "evolution."

Now, you are losing me. Apparently you think that since I said that evolution is a fact that I am also saying that evolution is "absolutely certain and irrefutable." I am afraid that I must give you another one of those "spit definitions" as you call them. (Actually, it is not unusual for the same word to have several meanings. Please don't feign ignorance here.) The word 'fact' is sometimes used to mean "certain" in the sense you are implying. However, facts can be improbable, probable, highly probable, etc. When we talk about historical facts, or scientific facts, for example, we may be very certain of our facts or not very certain of them. When I say that evolution is a fact, I do not mean that it is an infallible truth. I mean that it is established with a degree of probability such that it would be highly unreasonable to doubt it.

Of course your belief that evolution has occurred is unscientific, by your own definition.

It is? Your logic escapes me here.

Indeed, there are no pure theories in any discipline, so far as I know. I have read Einstein's pondering of this oddity. Ultimately, all theories must have an ad hoc belief, an assumption, as the starting seed.

Name dropper! If Einstein pondered that there are no pure theories, then I guess it can be pondered. I can usually ponder with the best of them, but I must admit I don't know what you are getting at here. An ad hoc belief is one introduced to try to explain away apparently refuting evidence for one's theory. Ad hoc hypotheses are not the same as basic assumptions. I am certainly aware that scientific theories are based on metaphysical assumptions. Science assumes that there is a constancy to laws of nature, rigid enough to make worthwhile the search for regularities and patterns in nature. Science assumes Occam's razor: that hypotheses should not be multiplied unnecessarily. For example, when the evidence indicates with strong probability that a fossil is millions of years old, science assumes it is more reasonable to believe that the fossil is millions of years old than that it was created in 4004 B.C. by God who made it look like it is millions of years old.

In the case of evolution, there is much more evidence pointing for Creationism than for evolution, by the knowledge that we now have.

Then why does the entire scientific community stubbornly reject this "evidence"? Are you implying that there is a universal conspiracy by scientists to support a theory they know is inferior to another theory? This sound preposterous to me.

You don't care, and you may never care.

Speak for yourself. I do care.

The Creationists' belief in what occurred is no less-supported than is evolution. The unique dogmatism for which you attack Creationists does not exist. Both Creationists and evolutionists see the event that occurred is fact, but debate the mechanism.

I am not sure what you are talking about here but it seems that maybe you are using one of those split definitions you speak of.

Suppose that this was not so. You still should not use the quote from a hostile source to prove the errors of your opponent. Maybe Gould can't imagine what it would take to change our minds. The important question would be, Can Creationists imagine such a set of data? But, Gould legitimizes your opinion.

I'd quote anyone to prove the errors of my opponents, if I thought quotes could prove anything. But I don't. So, I won't. Anyway, I think Gould has a much better understanding of these issues than you (or I!) do.

FYI, one of the first meetings that I attended by the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, Inc. compared dating techniques. I've seen comparisons of dating techniques ever since the 6th grade, but this one was more detailed and had a broader scope. It appears that you are ignorant of such things, though, because you say that we would have to do this, and you don't mention that we have done this. Now you know.

I read Duane Gish on these so-called scientific dating techniques and attacks on traditional scientific techniques. I am sorry but he was immensely unconvincing.

I've had a lot of experience debating evolution with evolutionists. There are usually 15 of them yelling at me. I much prefer doing this by e-mail. Maybe you will do what my opponents usually do (on any subject), and ignore what I've said. At least, though, I now have a fair chance to present what I believe. How rare.

All things good are rare.

I'll be decent enough to give you my name and e-mail address. I'm a Computer Science and Engineering student at LeTourneau University, a Christian engineering college in Longview, Texas. We celebrate our 50th anniversary next year. We've had a Web site for about 5 months.

Signed,
Richard Alexander
alexandr@letu.edu

Congratulations!


11 Jul 1996
Robert, I really like the dictionary. One point I have never seen about creationism is that (and I am assuming here) there are probably no non-Christian adherents. Creationists ask for the theory to be considered a "scientific" theory. But how many Jewish, Muslim, or atheist believers are there?

reply: I don't know how many Jews or Muslims believe in "scientific creationism," but I know how many atheists do.

This is in contrast to the rest of the body of scientific theories and discipline. You don't have to be any religious persuasion to believe in the laws of gravity, or of thermodymics, etc. But I would be surprised (no, flabbergasted!) to see any non-Christian believe in a creationist point of view.
--Mike Coldewey


20 Nov 1996
Your article about Creation Science was thought provoking but a bit contradictory. I was initially struck by your inclination to separate "Scientists" from "Creationists", ignoring the fact that hundreds (if not thousands) of creationists are scientists (i.e. Ph.D's) and well versed in the rules of science. But on further reflection I was pleased with the distinction because it was (cleverly) drawn right along religious lines, reflecting the source of each group's bias.

reply: we aim to please! and be clever, too.

At one point you state that "No biologist has ever been led to doubt that evolution has occured." This is patently false and there are many examples, Dr. Gary Parker being among the most prominent. I highly recommend a book he co-authored with Dr. Henry Morris on the subject called "What Is Creation Science?" In fact I dare say that any biologist reading this book with an open mind will be stunned by the crippling nature of the problems with evolution and the compelling evidence for special creation.

reply:I hope these biologists are fairer than you are in their arguments. You've taken my words out of context. What I write is that "through all the debate over evolutionary mechanisms no biologist has been led to doubt that evolution has occurred." I don't say that there aren't any people who are biologists and who are creationists. My words occur while discussing the view of Stephen Jay Gould that biologists are debating how evolution occurred, not whether it occurred.

You quote Gould as saying the "An idea which is certain cannot be empirically tested" and is therefore pseudoscience. This is the same Gould whom you quoted earlier in the article discussing the "FACT of evolution" and "the How (not the IF) of evolutionary mechanisms." Evolution clearly falls under the catagory of "Certain" in Dr. Gould'd eyes.

reply: Gould knows the difference between a metaphysical claim put forth dogmatically as absolutely certain and an empirical fact which the evidence overwhelmingly supports belief in, though we may use the word 'certain' in both cases, we don't mean the same thing. . Gould doesn't equivocate like some people I could mention.

You further state that Creation Science:

1) Engenders no debate about the fundamental mechanisms of the universe. How about these: The 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics which state that matter and energy don't arise out of nothing (in other words, they are either "eternal" or they were "created") and that all systems tend towards maximum chaos. Yet in light of this second law we are being asked to believe that all matter and energy began in the highest state of chaos imaginable (the Big Bang) and somehow organized itself into the highly complex and structured universe that we now observe, complete with life forms. If you believe this then you are not the true skeptic that you claim to be. In fact your faith surpasses that of any Christian I know.

reply: If you think this gibberish is intelligible and intelligent then your appraisal of my faith is not worrisome.

2) Makes no testable predictions. This is also grossly incorrect (please see "What Is Creation Science", referenced above). Just one example would be that creationism predicts the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record and in fact this is what we observe. All species appear in the fossil record fully formed and with no ancestors, outrageous claims regarding "Lucy" et al. not withstanding.

reply: I should have known that this great science would predict the absense of something!

There are many other issues to discuss on this fascinating topic but they will keep for another time. Thank you for this forum.

Aubsie@aol.com

reply: I'm glad you find this topic fascinating, but please, keep those other burning issues for as long as you want.

larrow.gif (1051 bytes) Creationism and Creation Science

 

All Reader Comments

Books by R. T. Carroll

cover The Critical Thinker's Dictionary

The Skeptic's Dictionary

Other Languages

Print versions available in Estonian, Russian, Japanese, Korean, and (soon) Spanish.

 
This page was designed by Cristian Popa.