SciAm Smacks Down Creationism
Posted on February 26, 2007
Filed Under /dev/null/ | 62 views |
It’s no surprise to anyone who read this blog or knows me that I don’t hold much respect for the “ideas” that are intelligent design and creationism. In an nutshell (get it?) both can flippantly be summed up as: “I cannot understand how such things came to be, therefor no one can understand how such things came to be, therefore the being of such things cannot be understood, therefore their being must have been caused by something so great as to be incomprehensible by us and since the only thing I can possibly conceive of as such is God with a capitol ‘G’, it must all be by God. Ipso facto, factum est.”
(Ok, maybe not that last bit in Latin, that’s giving a little too much credit.)
The problem with both of those vs. science is three-fold:
- Creationism is easy to comprehend and easy to digest. As long as one does not think too long or too hard, and has no desire to actually understand the universe in practical terms, both are quite tasty. However, science is not easy and generally answering one questions simply leads to many, many more (children and scientists alike love the same game: “Why?… Why?… Why?… etc.) And science demands an active participation and comprehension, even at its most basic levels (”…why?…why?….). The belief in God is atomic in nature: it cannot be reduced further and there is no need to attempt to do so (such attempts deny “faith”). But science gets more complex each and every day, harder and harder to understand as we dig deeper and deeper into it. Scary, that, isn’t it?
- Creationism provides a neat, tidy, gift-wrapped reason for everything with no loose ends (ignoring all the glaring loose ends, see point 1 above): “God made it so and thus it is so. Have faith.” Science, wihle providing reasons, is hardly so comforting. The universe is embraces entropy, everything is governed by random acts of probability, and none of it has much reason beyond “it is that way because the laws of the universe dictate that it cannot be any other way” anyhow. Yay, science.
- Creationism provides an absolute assurance: “God did it, God started it, God directs it, the end.” Science provides relatively few absolute assurances insofar as in science very few things are taken as absolutes and ignorance and a willingness to admit lack of knowledge are quite desirable traits. However humanity’s inability to answer many scientific questions with anything better than “um, we dunno”, and in fact may discover question that by their very nature are unanswerable (”what lies outside the universe?”) is not proof of God but rather glaring proof of humanity’s rather monumental ignorance. Ignorance != God (and I mean that in so very many ways.)
If you’ve ever argued with someone who fervently believes in creationism or intelligent design you know how remarkably circular, and thus frustrating, it can be. Fortunately the latest issue of Scientific American has the answers in 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense:
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as “intelligent design” to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms.
…
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common “scientific” arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
The over-arching theme of the article is one of knowledge vs. ignorance, wilful, political or otherwise. It is depressing to me that the most sound arguments of intelligent design can be easily debunked with little more than a high-school level understanding of biology, math, and logic and yet it continues to flourish sans evidence or plausibile experimentation (and no, “God made it unknowable” and “God does not require evidence” are neither rational nor convincing arguments, unless we’re perfectly willing to allow me to substitute “unicorn” for “God” in those statements and have the same conversation. I defy anyone to provide me concrete proof or evidence of any difference between god and a unicorn).
Sadly, those who most ought to read such articles won’t, dismissing them as propoganda or worse, as “a tribulation sent by God, a trial to be overcome”. And the division between the two sides will continue to widen and the sum of human knowledge and intellect will diminish all that little bit more as irrational arguments that were once put to rest decades ago rear up again.
At least we’ll always have the unicorns*.
(* see Job 39:9, Deuteronomy 33:17, Psalm 22:21 and Isaiah 34:7)
Comments
4 Responses to “SciAm Smacks Down Creationism”
Leave a Reply
jeez, if you’re going to knock something, have the courtesty to know what the advocates are actually saying.
Care to follow that up with some references or links for creationism/ID, or would you prefer I do so? I’m more than happy to, I’ve got lots.
yes, I’d like to see your sources. Perhaps I’ll learn something.
I’ve done so here. It’s by no means comprehensive but those seem to be the dominant, highly-referenced sites on the web. I do not include books because I don’t own any books on either topic, a personal choice informed by not wanting to financially fund either movement.