Leauki Leauki

The Word on Creationism

The Word on Creationism

The Word is "Lie"

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.


For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)


But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

 

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

 

136,871 views 625 replies
Reply #426 Top

Well, of course it is weird to you, you think that creationism and evolution are totally unrelated.  Of course, I might remind you that it was you who brought up evolution in the first place, in the original post, as being a superior alternative to creationism

I never brought up evolution as an alternative to Creationism.

It's not an "alternative" at all.

Science is not an alternative to fairy tales.

 

and scientists may or may not be Creationists.

By that logic scientists could also be Smurfists.

(Smurfists believe that Papa Smurf created the world and all animals, except Lula and some diseases which were created by the god of malaria, Papa Smurf's nemesis.)

 

Reply #427 Top

... evolutionists believe that mutations can lead to an increase in genetic information and thus lead to the development of new structures and features (an addition of information to the genome); creationists believe that this cannot happen (they believe this always causes a deletion of information from the genome)....

Notice how the creationists always tell us what they think we think & not what we've told them we think?

Here's a suggestion for a rational statement to replace the one above:

Evolutionary theory postulates that genetic mutations regularly occur in all species over time.  That some confer survival benefit, some do not.  That some lead, through many subsequent beneficial mutations, to the gradual evolution of physical structures, such as appendages and sensory organs, larger & more intelligent brains, etc.  Mind the the time scale here - millions of years in ever, usually slowly but occasionally abruptly, changing environments which may be favorable or unfavorable to the survival of those mutations.  There is a massive amount of physical evidence in the fossil record and in the genomes of species to support this theory.  Creationists believe this cannot happen (they believe this always causes a deletion of information from the genome).

Notice I did not change a word of the language offered by the creationist in the original quote.

Now, let's look at that last claim, that mutations 'always' cause a deletion of information from the genome.  What exactly does that mean, scientifically?  If mutations do occur, which evolutionists & creationists appear to agree is the case, what happens to the organism whose genome has had 'information deleted?'  Does this mean that creationism is essentially evolution-in-reverse?  That all non-human creatures 'devolved' from humans, which have the 'highest' information in their genome?  Just what, exactly, is the scientific basis for the belief that mutations always cause 'deletion of information from the genome?'  What is the evidence suggesting that this is so?  (BTW, 'God put them there' is not a scientific explanation).

Reply #428 Top

(Smurfists believe that Papa Smurf created the world and all animals, except Lula and some diseases which were created by the god of malaria, Papa Smurf's nemesis.)

Personally, I'm just glad that Jeff the God of Biscuits still has some power in the material world.

Reply #429 Top

Personally, I'm just glad that Jeff the God of Biscuits still has some power in the material world.

Are you trying to ban Smurfism from schools?

I think kids should be allowed to choose between learning science and Smurfology.

 

Reply #430 Top

Of course, I might remind you that it was you who brought up evolution in the first place, in the original post, as being a superior alternative to creationism

LEAUKI POSTS: #426

I never brought up evolution as an alternative to Creationism.

It's not an "alternative" at all.

Science is not an alternative to fairy tales.

Evidently, Leauki wants to get in a shooting match over the word "alternative" but he doesn't have a leg to stand on as he WRITES about science and evolution in first 3 paragraphs of his initial article:  

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.

For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

Leauki seems to only be able to describe what science isn't!


Science is not an alternative to fairy tales.

..... science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

True Science from microbiology to astrophysics is about finding truth and it's doing a great job in exposing the lies of textbook icons as evidence of proof of evolution such as the "Miller-Urey experiment", "Peppered Moths", "Haeckel's embryos", "Darwin's Tree of Life" and my favorite the "from Ape to Human" photos!

Reply #431 Top

No wonder you have such a hard time understanding how science works...

 

Reply #432 Top

No wonder you have such a hard time understanding how science works...

And you do? Especially when you say foolish things like:

By that logic scientists could also be Smurfists.

(Smurfists believe that Papa Smurf created the world and all animals, except Lula and some diseases which were created by the god of malaria, Papa Smurf's nemesis.)

:(O  

Reply #433 Top

Especially when you say foolish things like:

You dare doubt the scientific theory that Papa Smurf created the world?

How dare you!

 

Reply #434 Top

May you all be blessed with Christ's joy, peace and hope during the coming New Year!

Reply #435 Top

This topic is a joke.

How can you claim to be scientific and yet just fling mud everywhere?  Is that a rational and scientific way to get your point across?

Reply #436 Top

Half of this argument stopped being 'scientific' a long time ago, in fact never was.

Reply #437 Top

Kingbee, that doesn't work.

If you release too much actual science into a Creationist, she will shut down for a minute, ignore everything you said based on the idea that the world cannot be so complicated that she cannot understand it, reset, and start again pretending never to have been told of whatever fact it was you tried to convey.

 

clearly that's the case here.  nothing less nor more than i've come to expect from cultists.

Reply #438 Top

i caught a documentary--"jesus camp"--the other nite in which one 9 or 10-year-old wannabe evangical preacher was filmed during one of his daily homeschool lessons on the folly of science engaging in a lively scholarly debate with his instructor (who happens to be his mom).  as the scene ended, the kid said he wished todays scientists were like galileo who, after being shown the errors of his ways and thinking, rejoined the fold never to dabble in the demonic arts again.

one can only imagine what else he's being taught.  his mom and whomever fed that poor child such a load of shit would seem to be liars. misled or both.  sadly he seemed like a pretty bright kid who might likely benefit from an education.  

after about an hour of witnessing a whole bunch of other kids being similarly bamboozled by adults they trust, i was pretty bummed--but i hadda laff my ass off (disgusted with myself for doing so the entire time) when this kid and several of his associates returned from being dragged off to camp, then to dc in mid-winter to register "their" disapproval of the supreme court. were taken to ted haggard's megachurch and introduced to the holy man hisself afterward.  ted suffered the lil children unto himself after the service finished and offered them the benefit of his wisdom and experience.

as i noted while switching channels, if only that kid had any drugs to offer haggard along with a massage, he might have wound up being reared well in the end.

Reply #439 Top

Evolution claims that one lifeform evolves from another.

so Leauki where did the FIRST lifeform come from? 

Creationists claim that lifeforms came to be from thin air.

Nope.  Not representing us correctly Leauki. 

Creationists also believe that by demonstrating how lifeforms to not come to be from thin air, they have disproven evolution.

Nope again.  Which came first creation belief or evolutionary belief?  How can the first which has always been believed (and still is by many) disprove something that came after? 

 

Reply #440 Top

Science is not an alternative to fairy tales.

So you believe the writings of Moses are fairy tales?  Did you notice that centuries later Jesus verified what Moses wrote as truth?  Was he wrong also? 

Sorry won't be around for a few days...heading to KY to marry off my son and enjoy a late Christmas with all three of my boys and grandchildren.

Happy New Year Everyone! 

 

 

Reply #441 Top

In a nutshell, I'd say Special Creation is belief that there is only one God... The concept of Special Creation can be certainly be discussed, investigated and studied by scientists

No it can not, because by definition science excludes beleif. Beleif has nothing to do with science, never has, never will have. There is no POINT to studying faith, there is no room for faith in the schools, if you have faith just don't bother studying anything and maintain that faith. If you have the scientific perspective, discard all "beleif" and focus on facts that can be tested, prooved, or observed.

Some people have the beleif that there is a god, but discard all their beleifs about how the world work, amending their beleifs to match any knowledge they gain about the world (Oh, so there are these things called genes? well that must mean god made them). Thus those people have reason to go to school and learn despite maintaining a beleif, they might even be researchers despite not adhering to the notion of science 100%. Being scientists on everything except religion. (doublethink is alive and well).

Reply #442 Top

Nobody stops you from staying home and beleving what you will lula, but wanting to insert those atrocities into the school curriculum is inexcuseable.

Also, funny how you mention the "one true god of holy trinitity", obviously you are a christian, and find every other religion utterly laughable, I am sure you have very good reasons why islam, hindism, the greek panthenon etc are all false and ludicrious. Failing to realise that anyone of another religion has the same views about yours. "we are all atheists, some of us are just atheists for one religion more than others" (aka, you are an athist towards every religion BUT christianity)

Reply #443 Top

So you believe the writings of Moses are fairy tales?  Did you notice that centuries later Jesus verified what Moses wrote as truth?  Was he wrong also?

He said she said. Did jesus publish the "jesus experiment" which every man woman or artificial being can repeat for himself in order to personally verify beyond reason of a doubt those fairy tales? no he didn't, because he was confirming fairy tales, not science.

Some time ago I argued with my father about the bahavior of objects in regards to gravity AND centripital effect at the same time. Rather then drag it out I simply went to the garage, and assembled an experiment which we then each performed a couple of times (it was a fun experiment), it settled the question beyond any reason of a doubt.

You keep on quoting both creationists, religious texts, and famous scientists. The point is, to a scientist it doesn't matter at ALL what a famous scientist THOUGHT of an issue, you PROOVE NOTHING if you disproove (theoretically, not that you did) a statement made by a famous scientist, because we don't beleive HIM, we perform experiments that famous scientists came up with and get the exact same result (or a result showing how wrong they were and why the new theory took place). On that regard, "darwinism" is a laughable colloquial, there is no atheistic religion of darwinism that preaches tenants of faith about evolution. Merely a list of expriements, data, and fact that give ever more accurate conclusions and allow greater and greater consensus among the learned.

Reply #444 Top

As a child I was raised Catholic. Today, I no longer practice the portion of my faith that includes regular attendance at Mass, but I still hold on to my beliefs.

When I did attend Mass, I always found the scripture readings to be inspirational, and even at a young age, I felt that I was getting an understanding of God's word that was going over most adult's heads.

I've also been a bit of a junior scientist at heart, doing extremely well in school in all of the math and science courses. When I first heard about evolution, it made perfect sense to me, and meshed perfectly with the scriptures.

At the age of 10 or so, it was clear to me that God created the Universe, and the we came to be in the form that we are through the process of evolution. A process that God created himself.

As I grew older, and began to learn about black holes, quarks, and the big bang theory, things became even clearer - God created the Universe, via the big bang, and over billions of years the galaxies and stars and planets were formed. Life on Earth began much later, but all guided by God, from the first primordial soup to what we have today.

I never took the Bible literally. Seven days was but a metaphor for the process that God used to create the Universe.

We've certainly learned a lot, but we have much more to learn. I feel that the pursuit of knowledge that science provides us is right in line with what God would want of us. It leads us to a better understanding of our Universe and allows us to help the less fortunate of this world.

It should also bring us together - Christains, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, Atheists, and anyone else that I've left out.

Peace and love everyone.

Reply #445 Top

so Leauki where did the FIRST lifeform come from?

How should I know?

 

Nope.  Not representing us correctly Leauki.

OK, enlighten me: what did G-d make life from?

 

So you believe the writings of Moses are fairy tales?

No. But I cannot prove them to be correct, so from a scientific point of view they are as fairy tales.

 

Did you notice that centuries later Jesus verified what Moses wrote as truth?

No.

 

Was he wrong also? 

Yes.

Reply #446 Top

Lula posts:

In a nutshell, I'd say Special Creation is belief that there is only one God... The concept of Special Creation can be certainly be discussed, investigated and studied by scientists

taltimer posts:

No it can not, because by definition science excludes beleif. Beleif has nothing to do with science, never has, never will have.

Your statement, although the popular belief today becasue it's freely taught by the media and in public schools in the name of Secular Humanism, is grossly unfounded. It's both a mis-use and misrepresentation to think and say that true science excludes belief in God. Again, up until the mid 1800s, Science was always used to prove the truth of God and to give us knowledge of His Creation, that is, until the atheistic form of "Higher Criticism" came along with its hatred of God and religion and started the war against theology using the work of Darwin.

Here, by your definition, all there is is Atheistic science from which Darwin's "amoeba to man" Evolutionary Theory was developed (also freely taught by the media and in public education in the name of Secular Humanism). They falsely believe that man is able to know everything about the universe and all life in it without God in the picture or process.

This separation of science from belief in God and in His religious truths is artificial becasuse without God, science would have died long, long ago.

And, you know what, people are finally waking up to the fact that Atheist claims that science has provided them with proofs that the idea of God and His religious truths are only superstitious myths based on ignorance are lies ....going nowhere. Evolutionary Theory is all but dead.

Unfortunately and sadly, some are afraid to criticize Atheistic science and expose it for the lie that it is for a myriad of reasons....as Ben Stein so adequately pointed out in his docu-drama, Expelled.

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Reply #447 Top
Bunnahabhain posts: #444


When I first heard about evolution, it made perfect sense to me, and meshed perfectly with the scriptures.

At the age of 10 or so, it was clear to me that God created the Universe, and the we came to be in the form that we are through the process of evolution. A process that God created himself.

As I grew older, and began to learn about black holes, quarks, and the big bang theory, things became even clearer - God created the Universe, via the big bang, and over billions of years the galaxies and stars and planets were formed. Life on Earth began much later, but all guided by God, from the first primordial soup to what we have today.


This reads like you are buying into what's commonly called "Theistic Evolution". Even though TE contradicts Catholic doctrine and Biblical Revelation, it was proposed as a blending of Creation events stretched over eons of time with Evolution concepts as the method of creation used by God.

When carefully examined you'll find the Holy Bible refutes TE credibility (for starters, read Romans 5:12 and Wisdom 1:13-14;2:24). Besides that, the weight of modern scientific evidence, particularly with its light shed on the existence of the complexities of DNA, has effectively ruled out Evolution as a credible means used by God.

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Reply #448 Top

KFC POSTS:

so Leauki where did the FIRST lifeform come from?

leauki posts #445

How should I know?

I know, I know. I know where, when and by Whom! \o/

Reply #449 Top

I know, I know. I know where, when and by Whom!

Great. Please introduce to him to us and let him demonstrate how to do it!

 

Reply #450 Top

I've just had a little revelation of my own Lula. It involved you and a stainless steel toilet. :'(