I often run across creationist stuff on the net as I browse looking for various thingies, this being one of them. I don't usually post about them, because I know I'm only saying what others have said before. However, it occurs to me that since creationists always say what has been said before in spite of what people like myself say then perhaps it needs restating. I wrote this up a few days back, in a Microsoft Office Word Document.
I believe the creationist here posted this in... 2008 (I think), http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/sevncrea.htm
Critique of "The Seven Days Of Creation" by Wayne Blank ...
********************************
On this page can be seen a number of good examples of the kind of (non-)reasoning a creationist uses to propagate his or her beliefs. If one is to interpret the validity of any proposition, one must be able to defend it in a way that does not double back upon itself and become circular. Let us have a brief look at some of the comments written in the work cited above and see the problems with them.
Obviously, any thinking person should be saying that I am not hitting the target with regard to the quote above. The "facts" in question may not be directly to do with any supposed proof of a god's existence. That is important to state at this time. It is important because a creationist will present a "fact" as though it not only proves the existence of a god, but also makes god a fact by extension. Now, this leads us into the discussion about further quotes.
The final sentence in the quote above is actually entirely wrong. What appears to be an orderly development is something we can observe. A scientist is not satisfied with that; it is the subsequent understanding of what leads to it that will satisfy the needs of the scientific mind. One can observe that a tree has leaves, but does that explain why the tree has leaves? No.
The final two sentences of the quote above clearly identify the circularity of logic that is to be found in creationist arguments. "The observable universe, the earth beneath our feet, and every one of us exist." That is true (at least if one does not bring in metaphysical discussions of what constitutes reality), and cannot be denied. Of course we exist, otherwise there would be no discussion. But to turn around and say that this is proof we were created is the same as saying that purple is the product of red and blue getting together and planning to create a new colour.
So, in answer to the final question from the quote above, there are many who need more proof than that. Existence does not prove creation. If the question is "how did we get here?" then there cannot be only one answer to choose. Debates have at least two points of view, otherwise there is no debate.
********************************
On another note: It seems no matter how hard people try to explain the meaning of "theory" when used in the phrase "evolutionary theory" (for example) it continues to be misunderstood by creationists. If creationists wish to remain pig-headed about this subject that is their own fault, but when they present their lack of comprehension to the general public as though they knew what they were talking about then it presents a problem.
People who do not understand the meaning of "theory" in this context - who might otherwise be able to correctly comprehend the word - are going to be influenced by this propaganda. When people say "it's just a theory" enough times the general public will begin to assimilate that into their understanding of things.
Creationists are constantly and very actively trying to brain wash people, we all know this, but do we think about how subtle the brainwashing techniques can be? Is the public being educated, or are non-reliigious people sitting on their hands for the most part? We don't even have to convince the creationists of anything, as long as we can make the general public aware of their underhandedness.
********************************
There also appears to be a larger percentage of people who openly express non-religios ideas, and it has become somewhat more common to see anti-creationist media. Public debates between the two sides are to be found in the news, on youtube, on blogs, on television, etc, etc. People who express non-religious views are not likely to be burned at the stake in most parts of the world any more (although the fact that some areas are still dangerous places to be a non-theist is very real).
So, what exactly is happening? There has always been a great rift between creationists and naturalists, but is it possible that the rift is growing even more? What, I wonder, does that mean for our future? More and more we hear arguments that creationism should be taught in schools, but how much do we hear about the arguments against it? Is Sarah Palin likely to be voted into office in the States, opening up a vast potential for her to have her way and get creationism taught along side science?
If this happens, will parents be able to impress in the minds of their children the ability to discern between reality and fiction? I cannot quite concieve of a situation that would be more confusing than to tell a child that collecting data and drawing logical conclusions is science, but on the other hand trying to explain the world away through a system of faith-based illusions is also science. Right??
In any case, thank y'all for readin'. Hope to hear from you.
Dean.
I believe the creationist here posted this in... 2008 (I think), http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/sevncrea.htm
Critique of "The Seven Days Of Creation" by Wayne Blank ...
********************************
On this page can be seen a number of good examples of the kind of (non-)reasoning a creationist uses to propagate his or her beliefs. If one is to interpret the validity of any proposition, one must be able to defend it in a way that does not double back upon itself and become circular. Let us have a brief look at some of the comments written in the work cited above and see the problems with them.
- "There has been a tremendous amount of disagreement between science and religion, each side armed with its own obvious facts to refute the other."
Obviously, any thinking person should be saying that I am not hitting the target with regard to the quote above. The "facts" in question may not be directly to do with any supposed proof of a god's existence. That is important to state at this time. It is important because a creationist will present a "fact" as though it not only proves the existence of a god, but also makes god a fact by extension. Now, this leads us into the discussion about further quotes.
- "The universe as it exists was not produced by some cosmic accident. The conditions of creation were intricately planned and considered. A mindless uncontrolled "big bang" would result in destruction and chaos, not the life and order we now see."
- "On the other hand, a great initial expansion (explosion) of physical matter that had just been transformed (created) from pure energy (from a physical point of view, literally nothing), followed by orderly development (from natural laws put into force beforehand by a Creator) of stars, galaxies and everything else, is reasonable and logical. It satisfies both religion and science."
The final sentence in the quote above is actually entirely wrong. What appears to be an orderly development is something we can observe. A scientist is not satisfied with that; it is the subsequent understanding of what leads to it that will satisfy the needs of the scientific mind. One can observe that a tree has leaves, but does that explain why the tree has leaves? No.
- "The question of whether the seven days of creation were literal days, or symbolic of stages of development is actually irrelevant to the undeniable reality that Creation happened. The observable universe, the earth beneath our feet, and every one of us exist. Who needs more proof than that?"
The final two sentences of the quote above clearly identify the circularity of logic that is to be found in creationist arguments. "The observable universe, the earth beneath our feet, and every one of us exist." That is true (at least if one does not bring in metaphysical discussions of what constitutes reality), and cannot be denied. Of course we exist, otherwise there would be no discussion. But to turn around and say that this is proof we were created is the same as saying that purple is the product of red and blue getting together and planning to create a new colour.
So, in answer to the final question from the quote above, there are many who need more proof than that. Existence does not prove creation. If the question is "how did we get here?" then there cannot be only one answer to choose. Debates have at least two points of view, otherwise there is no debate.
********************************
On another note: It seems no matter how hard people try to explain the meaning of "theory" when used in the phrase "evolutionary theory" (for example) it continues to be misunderstood by creationists. If creationists wish to remain pig-headed about this subject that is their own fault, but when they present their lack of comprehension to the general public as though they knew what they were talking about then it presents a problem.
People who do not understand the meaning of "theory" in this context - who might otherwise be able to correctly comprehend the word - are going to be influenced by this propaganda. When people say "it's just a theory" enough times the general public will begin to assimilate that into their understanding of things.
Creationists are constantly and very actively trying to brain wash people, we all know this, but do we think about how subtle the brainwashing techniques can be? Is the public being educated, or are non-reliigious people sitting on their hands for the most part? We don't even have to convince the creationists of anything, as long as we can make the general public aware of their underhandedness.
********************************
There also appears to be a larger percentage of people who openly express non-religios ideas, and it has become somewhat more common to see anti-creationist media. Public debates between the two sides are to be found in the news, on youtube, on blogs, on television, etc, etc. People who express non-religious views are not likely to be burned at the stake in most parts of the world any more (although the fact that some areas are still dangerous places to be a non-theist is very real).
So, what exactly is happening? There has always been a great rift between creationists and naturalists, but is it possible that the rift is growing even more? What, I wonder, does that mean for our future? More and more we hear arguments that creationism should be taught in schools, but how much do we hear about the arguments against it? Is Sarah Palin likely to be voted into office in the States, opening up a vast potential for her to have her way and get creationism taught along side science?
If this happens, will parents be able to impress in the minds of their children the ability to discern between reality and fiction? I cannot quite concieve of a situation that would be more confusing than to tell a child that collecting data and drawing logical conclusions is science, but on the other hand trying to explain the world away through a system of faith-based illusions is also science. Right??
In any case, thank y'all for readin'. Hope to hear from you.
Dean.
