Response to
"Creation vs. Evolution: Irrefutable Proof"
booklet by Dr. Jason
Lisle
ISBN
978-1-60092-315-9
2010 Answers In Genesis publication
Karl, thanks for the interest in getting my opinion and feedback from
this piece. You probably know my
position on the validity of the Christian creation story, but I am always
willing to listen! One thing I really
wish others on all sides of any argument/debate/discussion would do is listen
and seriously consider what the others say, especially if they do not agree
with it. Everyone has their own personal
perspectives on everything that happens to them in life, that is just how it is
and why we have such a diverse pool of personalities and ideas. It is no different for this kind of subject;
one only needs to listen and appreciate the particular perspective from which
the argument/opinion comes. Until one
can understand even a little bit of that other perspective, there probably won't
be any progress.
And so, here is my response to this book. I believe I will go section by section,
quoting specifics as needed, rather than a general response at the end. Might be more specific that way.
Section 1 - Intro.
Heh, a quite note on the third sentence: most of us who are honest
about human knowledge in this "materialistic" world view will
acknowledge that we have no right to claim much understanding of events like
the Big Bang. We have some
"educated guesses" backed up by math, science, etc, but that is a
very far cry from complete understanding.
The influence of human kind has only just begun to understand ourselves
and a few of the environments we have been living on for the last few thousand
years. Much of ourselves, and our
planet, are a mystery. More so is the
moon, which currently marks the edge of our physical reach. We've sent some expensive toys out a little
further to take a look at the rest of the solar system and stars around us, and
its only been recently that we've gotten some rather amazing and clear images
of it all. Claiming knowledge of
anything beyond those spheres of our influence is met with the understanding of
just how new at this we are. Just want
to make that clear!
Immediately, from the perspective of a non-theist talking to a theist
about trying to examine the logic and science behind a specific religions
creation story, you will find that most non-theists quickly lose interest and
will already be willing to leave the discussion. One of those reasons is because of the nature
of these world views in the classic stereotype of logic vs emotion, science vs
faith. Those are very general, though, a
very big brush to paint with that ignores a great many things. The one thing to see, though, is that
"materialists" view this world view of theirs as objective,
emotionless and pure science, and a faith view as pure emotionally supported
with little to no science. I've seen a
number of Young Earth Creationists who think they have valid science supporting
their views, such as presented by Creation Museums all over the place; science,
however, does not allow for very much interpretation.
So right from the start, any non-theist "materialist" will
be put off or even amused at the mere mention of trying to use science and
logic to validate a religious creation story.
And from the third paragraph about claiming an emotional attachment to
the "belief in evolution that they will be unwilling to even consider an
argument to the contrary" will start to annoy some, heh. Personally, I find it a sign of a shallow
thinker to stop there and ignore the rest, but some will just stop there
because they have heard this claim many times before. While I am sure there are some people who
have tried to hold on to science with an emotional attachment, they are only
hurting themselves. The truth behind the
science to evolution is that it does not require belief of any kind. Evolution, which is change over time, is, even
when it applies to human evolution, the culmination of at least a dozen
completely different fiends of science all converging on the same answers and
conclusions to establish a true Scientific Theory. So I put it to the author that the immediate
and almost rude rejection of his argument is not due in any way to an emotional
response to the contrary, negating the claim of the third paragraph, but
because the argument has already been settled in various ways for a long time.
I will reserve judgment on the last paragraph about "intellectual
debris" of "bad arguments" used in the debate until we get to
them, but that made me smile. I am very
well aware of a great number of really horrible argument, silly arguments, just
plain wrong arguments, and more, used mostly by one side but in actuality used
by all sides. We will see what the
author has to say about that!
Section 2: A Few
Common Evolution Arguments
Equivocation claim. The authors
accusation of equivocation fallacy is rejected, due to the authors apparent
misunderstanding of the word evolution.
By definition, the word evolution is, as defined by wikipedia, "...the
change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over
successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every
level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and
molecules such as DNA and proteins."
As I mentioned earlier, evolution simply means change over time, be it
human, elephant, or any other kind of living organism on this planet, yes, even
including plants. Bacteria developing a resistance
to harmful substances to its own well being is a prime example of
evolution. This can be demonstrated in
all organisms from bacteria to the largest creatures on the planet.
The second paragraph makes some good points though. Anyone using Ad Hominum attacks (attacking
the person rather than the argument) does not deserve to be in the debate. However, the accusation of
question-begging-epithet is suspect. It
is very rare that anyone in any religious debate will stick around long enough
to get the full breakdown of what makes up their argument, on any side. Most non-theists who engage theists in a
debate about their religion do not have a library or their life's experiences
and perceptions on the topic readily available for examination and reference
right then and there, so this claim's validity is rather dubious depending on
the circumstances of the debate. It
works both ways, too, however; theists have merely to say "its a matter of
faith" and that will suddenly end all discussion and debate avenues as
"faith" is something personal, which cannot be shaken or challenged
easily due to the intensely personal and individual nature of it.
"Inappropriate appeal to authority" claim, Ad Populum
(appeal to population) claim. Both of
these are rejected. First, scientists
are the authority in their field on the specific topic of evolution they are
addressing or being cited for, so not only did the author fail to apply this
fallacy correctly, but he demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what the
fallacy is and what an "authority" is on any subject. This fallacy is use when the
"authority" on the subject in question has no actual authority to be
making claims on it, such as a football coach with no study time, education, or
degrees beyond football tries to act as, or is cited as, an authority on
something completely unrelated, like particle physics of nuclear fission
through ceramic materials (I actually heard something like that being mentioned
as a PhD focus from someone at my friends graduation from a university before). Second, the appeal to population claim is
slightly dishonest.
A) A scientific consensus
of a Scientific Theory is reached only upon exhaustive research and peer review
over a long period of time, and is done so by the entire world. It isn't agreed upon by the worlds scientists
because they simply say so, it is done so because of the science proving it to
be the case.
B) Invoking this fallacy is
a misguided attempt, or a demonstration of actual ignorance, on the system
leading up to what earns a scientific consensus. Additionally, ending with the second to last
sentence about how the scientists of the world have been "dead wrong"
before, is yet another well known and very dishonest tactic used by certain
people to slander science. Given the
chance, I doubt the author could actually provide clear examples of this, but
that is just a petty retort, honestly, heh.
In all honesty, I believe the author's bias is not allowing him to
mention that science is self correcting and will eventually find the
"truth" to the matter as long as we keep asking questions and
developing new ways in which to test those questions out. The argument of "scientists being wrong
before" is exactly what has given rise to everything we take for granted
today, in every moment of our lives in these big cities. So it is with a smile on my face, after a
particularly heavy eye rolling, that I submit that these claims as well are not
valid.
Begging the question claim. The
point is brought up that "creation cannot be true because it involves the
supernatural. Science must be limited to
natural explanations." Good point, and it would possibly be
considered for an actual use of fallacious logic ... except for a few
considerations.
1) The word
"creation" used at the beginning of this quote is not limited to the
authors particular version of an Abrahamic monotheism: it can refer to any
creation myth from any religion or culture in the world that has ever or may
ever exist. Many of them are quite
different, and all of them are believed by their believers with equal
conviction that they are all individually the "real" story. This is one of many reasons why science
limits itself to what it can prove while excluding such things. This, to me, is very fair. Also, it has been my experience that theists
are unwilling to accept the possibility of other creation myths when they are
talking about this topic within this discussion, and I find that rather
telling, personally.
2) Even if someone
humors another of the Christian faiths to allow their creation story in an
attempt to see where it goes, right from the start we have a problem with the
first few pages of any bible used; when the literal reading is questioned for
validity, the theist will almost always return with "its not to be taken
literal, it is to be metaphorical".
So then the point becomes meaningless as to why the theist complained in
the first place.
3) The one thing that
destroys this argument from theists is the simple point: Evolution has nothing
to say about anything before the origins of life, because it requires the
presence of life before it has any meaning.
That is the one thing many theists seem to completely misunderstand,
including the author, apparently. The
formation of planets, "creation" of the universe... none of these
have anything to do with Evolution. That
tells me, and most other non-theists, exactly what we need to know about the
credibility of the author and what we can expect from the rest of the booklet
right there. So no, this claim is also
rejected. Science depends on testing,
and on matters of faith there can be no tests made in a laboratory.
As for the point about refuting radiometric dating methods... no, now
the author is outright lying. If he is
referring to Carbon Dating methods, there is a specific range of dates where
this method works and where it doesn't, as well as a number of reasons
contaminants will throw the date way off.
These are known issues, which is why multiple elemental dating methods
are used. This is scientifically
unforgivable, and adds a new level of disappointment to the credibility of this
piece.
Affirming the consequent claim.
This is dishonest. The author is
making these arguments from the untenable position where there is nothing
validating the claims he is attacking, making it seem like people are randomly
asserting the things he is mentioning.
This is not true in the slightest.
I have yet to see any scientist say that "because we thought we'd
get this result and this, Evolution MUST be true!"... and I doubt I ever
will. This is called a Strawman
Fallacy. The author should attack claims
like that, because people like me would be quick to point out its failures as
well. Once again, claim rejected due to
committing a fallacy of his own.
Reification claim. ....this is
just stupid and childish, given what the author attempted to argue. I can tell the author is really grasping at
straws here. No scientist, no
non-theist, and probably many theists, would acknowledge any validity in this
last paragraph. Needless to say,
rejected and embarrassing to see such a thing written.
Section 3: Scientific
Evidence.
Oh dear... right from the start I find myself rolling my eyes. "As far as we know, creative information
can only originate in a mind."
There are a number fallacies associated with this particular argument,
the first one of which is a silly response that goes something like, "Well
then, all hail Lord Cathulu!".
There are other fallacies associated with this, but it boils down to a
baseless assertion, especially as it includes the Special Pleading fallacy that
asserts validity of one god over another god when the argument can apply to any
god or system of gods. It's a silly
argument to attempt. Additionally, the
author has no justification to state, especially as yet another baseless
assertion, at the end of the paragraph that "It cannot be the result of
chance mutations and natural selection".
The author has demonstrated ignorance of the evolutionary process, what
mutations are, and so on.
The next paragraph talks about the fossil record, which is apparently
"exactly what creationists would expect to find, since the Bible records a
global Flood...". No. Just, no.
1) There is absolutely no evidence for a global flood. 2) Even if there was a global flood, it would
not leave bones in an organized system as we find it today. 3) Any attempt to
validate a literal "global flood" event in history will fail right
from the start. The arguments have been
made, refuted, and compounded by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I have personally identified 47 or so
specific reasons why the global flood is an impossibility, which can be viewed
in a two part video series I have on youtube.com : .
Part 1:
cheeky reading of the biblical event, list of literary facts as told from the
story, speculation from supporters
Part 2:
rebuttal with 47 of my own points:
...or, for
easier reading, I've put the entire script (including links to the videos) in a
blog of mine, as requested by others a while ago:
And on the last paragraph for this section, yes, the fossil record,
geologic column, and genetics all support the Scientific Theory of Evolution,
without issue. For the genetics, I'd
like to point out human Chromosome number two, which is the clear bridge point
discovered in genetics and predicted by people going back, if not farther into
history, as Darwin himself who suggested a link between primates and
humans. Specifically, the evidence of
human chromosome number two was displayed in detail during the Dover Trail over
Intelligent Design, noting how the chromosome was a fusion of two other
chromosomes and how the truth shines a light on the interesting difference
between humans and primate chromosomes.
The author is clearly under prepared for this debate.
Section 4: Evidence
and Worldviews
I whole heartedly agree with the author about "both"
parties, creationists and "evolutionists", using the same
evidence. Well, sort of: most
creationists just don't bother using the scientific evidence to support their
claim; they utilize their limited understandings, misinformation, and outright
lies by the theist community as support for their arguments. This is the frustrating part of the entire
argument. Yes, we all have access to the
same things, yet many are coming to completely different conclusions while
refusing to do a lot of work to actually validate those conclusions. By and large, no creationist can actually
substantiate their world view with science these days. Creation Museums are a national embarrassment
of the United States of America on the global stage, and we are constantly
mocked for it. The Intelligent Design
movement had a shot at the Dover Trial of 2005 to validate the strength of its
case, and as the Discovery Institute ran away in shame from the trial, there
was nothing the actual, if not dishonest and confused, scientist Dr Behe could
do to make a good case. We are a first
world country with a third world devotion to an ancient religion.
And as a side note, using the term "evolutionist" makes many
of us "materialists" laugh and think "awe, how cute!",
honestly. For a number of reasons, we
see this telling use of words to be quite amusing.
Another note on something in this section: the history of the Bible is
now, more so than past decades, known to be quite suspect. The Fairbanks Freethinkers show a NOVA
documentary on this specific subject called the Bibles Buried Secrets, which
goes into detail about the actual written history, cultural history, and
origins of this version of the Abrahamic tradition. So... yes, actually, the history alone can
settle the debate itself. I know that is
hardly satisfactory for any believer, but from my perspective it really is
quite an influential bit of evidence piling on top of the already massive pile.
The authors attempt to talk about Carbon-14 is comical, barely worth
noting, but he gets it right where he says "...an evolutionist will not necessarily
be persuaded by such evidence."
Very true, because that misunderstanding of Carbon-14 is not actual
evidence for anything except an ignorance of the topic.
Section 5: How to
Resolve a Worldview Issue:
Oh yes, two problems with the first few lines. 1) The literal interpretation of Genesis is
already invalidated, and 2) he just invoked the God of the Gaps and Special
Pleading, False Dichotomy fallacies. Not
only did he just use the old argument of "if you can't explain it, it must
be my god", but he stated a case where the only alternative was his god
and his gone alone. Triple failure, and
there may be additional ones on top of that.
I find it ironic that, in the first paragraph of page 14, the author
makes a case that saying something is wrong because it goes against his world
views, if he had to play devil's advocate (heh), ...but isn't that exactly what
he is doing by neglecting to even consider other cultural creation stories as a
possible answer and only attacking Evolution, which, as stated before, only
covers life on this planet once it was already here?
I also cannot withhold a big smile as the author states:
"If a worldview
is defective in any of these areas, then it is not rational to hold. We will see that evolution fails all three of
these tests, but creation passes spectacularly:"
-page 15
This just makes my inner nerd giggle a little bit. With the three given categories being tested
are how arbitrary, inconsistent, and full of preconditions it is, I know the
authors statement is actually completely reversed in reality.
The reasoning the author gives for his point on Arbitrariness is
ironic and fallacious. He used the
argument of testimonials from "evolutionists" to invalidate the
entire Scientific Theory of Evolution.
Very foolish. Very poor
form. Very dishonest. I am not impressed, and continue to be
disappointed. Arguments founded on testimonials,
or commonly known as "person on the street" statements, fail for many
reasons, the first one being that people are stupid. Yes, yes, it's true. I am reminded of a line from Mel Brooks movie
Blazing Saddles, "You've got to
remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The
common clay of the new West. You know... morons." I really don't care for the people who argue
that "Oh look, this guy on the street couldn't answer my question,
therefore my view is right!" ....silly, very silly. There is no excuse for that kind of thing in
this day and age, not with things like telephones, the internet, and even such
things as call-in shows like The Atheist Experience which has been on for 15
years taking calls from anyone and everyone while being willing to discuss and
debate anything. And seriously, if this
one point about the random person not knowing the answers is all he has for the
"arbitrariness" of the Scientific Theory of Evolution, is it any
wonder no one is convinced by this booklet?
As a side note on the second section about Inconsistency, I have a
poster that outlines several hundred contradictions within the Bible itself in
a visual representation, it is called The Reason Project.
In this section, the author tries to use Relativism as an example of
an inconsistent and self-refuting "world view". Again, this demonstrates the authors poor and
apparent superficial understanding of the things he is trying to use in this
booklet. I will again quote a
definition:
"Relativism is
the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only
relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and
consideration.[1] The term is often used to refer to the context of moral
principle, where in a relativistic mode of thought, principles and ethics are
regarded as applicable in only limited context. There are many forms of
relativism which vary in their degree of controversy.[2] The term often refers
to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths,
i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such
as a language or a culture (cf. cultural relativism). Another widespread and
contentious form is moral relativism."
-wikipedia (yes,
wikipedia. If someone has a problem with
using wikipedia definitions specifically, they can find another definition
somewhere that comes from a higher authority and refutes the definition here,
or be forced to concede that this is a workable definition. Note that wikipedia often cites its pages
with various other works outside of its own site)
First example demonstrates the authors failure to know what he is
talking about. His second example is
"strict empiricism", being the belief that "...all truth claims
should be evaluated empirically: by observation or experimentation". Yes, it means you shouldn't make stuff up and
expect anyone to take you at your word, that we require a demonstration of
those truth claims in order to take it seriously. I, for one, do not have blind faith in
something just because someone says so... I require a foundation upon which to
set trust, some justification such as credentials or evidence. Why would anyone do it otherwise? The author expands on this example of
"strict empiricism" by articulating it in another way: "If a
claim cannot be proved by observation or experimentation, then it is to be
rejected." That is quite fair, I
think. However, the author claims this
is self-refuting... because it itself "cannot be proved by observation or
experimentation", which is quite false.
Trying to assert that the definition of "strict empiricism" is
self-refuting only betrays an astoundingly shallow thought process.
It is no surprise, after those two issues, that I would have
difficulties accepting the leap from that to how an "evolution
worldview" is inconsistent, especially when the author conflates Evolution
with anything to do with the universe with "...evolution implies that the
universe is..." No. No it doesn't. As stated previously, Evolution has nothing
to do with anything beyond how life on this planet changes over time. Time and time again, I find myself having to
repeat that to certain people.
Ignoring this point for the next paragraph, I have another problem
with "...people are simply chemical accidents: the meaningless products of
mindless interactions of nature."
Here I draw a number of conclusions about the authors frame of mind and
intentions with those few simple words.
First, the biochemical reactions of our bodies are far from simple, but
that is beside the point. The word
"accidents" combined with the twice iterated point of a lack of
intelligent causation ("meaningless" and "mindless") shows
me that the real issue the author has with evolution is the lack of a personal
connection, which will boil down to a lack of an afterlife or a
"purpose" in things. This, as
I have seen over and over, is the core problem theists have with a non-eternal
system of existence. Setting that aside
for now, the author conflates the word "meaningless" within the
context of a lack of intelligent intervention and randomness to the context of
"meaningless" as he applies it to a personal and emotional
interaction between a male human returning from a day of work and embracing and
kissing a female human. Okay...
seriously, does the author actually intend to call Evolution inconsistent
because of his interpretation of Evolution by natural selection as
"meaningless" chemical reactions being somehow required to not retain
an emotional connection between multiple very complex entities in a complex
social hierarchy between mates of the same species, supported by biochemical
reactions intended to promote procreation and the survival of offspring? ...the author is clearly suffering from a
vast deficiency of knowledge and understanding relating to so many topics
within this very small context he is attempting to reference for his
point. This is not an example of an
inconsistency, but yet another example of the authors profound ignorance of the
details.
In the next paragraph in this section which examines the creationist
worldview, it pains me to have to point this out, but here it is: "He
expects laws of nature to be congenial to human understanding since God made
the human mind able to understand (at least aspects of) the
universe." I will roll my eyes,
chuckle, and only mention the time it has taken to reach our level of understanding
in "the universe", and how very, very far we have yet to go to even
begin a remedial understanding of the most basic functions and reality that is
our universe.
Third part of three, Preconditions for Knowledge. The phrasing of the first sentence is rather
odd, honestly, and while I know where he is going with this just from the
title, its more obvious with this, "If a worldview does not make knowledge
and science possible, then the worldview is wrong-because knowledge and science
are indeed possible!" This, to
anyone thinking about it, should sounds vaguely circular at the very least, yet
blatantly fallacious. Knowledge is not
exactly tangible. It is not something we
can turn on or off, in any organism.
Science, likewise, is not a thing that can be influenced directly. The irony of this is that the author has
already made this link in his mind pages previously, yet seems to ignore that
and attack it as some kind of point now.
Additionally, the author makes another intellectual blunder with this:
"in order for us to use laws of logic in our reasoning, such laws must
already exist". This line of
argumentation leads down an intellectually crippling slope of baseless
assertions and fallacious logic to reach a forced conclusion with no rational
foundation; intellectual laws require a law giver, which is then asserted to be
a specific version of an Abrahamic monotheism.
These laws do not "exist" in a material sense. These kinds of laws are thoughts. In particular, a race of creatures called
humans on this specific planet have, in the last few hundred years or so,
reached a general conclusion that a certain line of reasoning is so
intellectual strong that it is currently considered to be above reproach. This does not mean that any particular
"law of logic" we hold on a intellectual pedestal is some kind of
material item in the universe that has existed somewhere in time and space for
us to stumble upon and then claim as our "law", nor was it ever
"given" to us by anything.
Arguments like these are a slap in the face to all intelligent human
beings because it says that we are too stupid to have done it ourselves through
thousands of years of rational and philosophical examination and could never
have enough intellectual power to reach it without assistance. This, in my experience, is an extension of
the Christian self-loathing that seems to act as a filter hindering any sense
of achievement.
How readily do humans forget the shoulders upon which they stand and
judge others. How soon do humans ignore
the trials, pain, suffering, and effort by their previous generations to
deliver them into the here and now.
Romans 12:3 kind of applies here as well, sort of. Too often do we forget the past and imagine
ourselves so strong and quick to slander and spit in the faces of our dead
ancestors who worked to build us to our height.
This bothers me, a great deal, as if people are arrogant enough to say
that we are good enough that we wouldn't have needed any help, like a spoiled
brat unwilling to acknowledge a caring parent.
If the author believes the Laws of Logic to be the same as the effects
we observe in the natural world, such as the particular way in which chemicals
bond, gravitation, or other such things, he is guilty of conflating the word
"law" here. They are similar
in the way they required initial discovery, exhaustive exploration, scrutiny,
testing, and then refinement in order to reach global recognition, but
comparing these things will not extend beyond these accidental
similarities. The scientific laws
described by any Scientific Theory are, even today, simply the best we can
explain natural forces within the terms of our current and "modern"
perspectives. Laws of Logic are
intellectual conventions which have no material structure what so ever. Social laws and governances are just as
abstract as Laws of Logic, which also have no material form in the slightest,
yet are only "laws" because a group of us got together and
established them to be. No Scientific
Theory, no Law of Logic, and no Judicial Law of social behaviors have ever been
"given" to us; we have either discovered them, worked them out
intellectually for ourselves, or reached such a conclusion by agreement of
those in power at the time. Needless to
say, there are a great many issues with trying to argue the "laws require
a lawgiver" argument.
"But evolution cannot make sense of laws of logic." The context of this entire paragraph is based
on the assertion that because we say these four fundamental Laws of Logic:
1) Law of Identity:
Everything is what it is. A is A or A is identical with A
2) Law of
Contradiction: A cannot be A and not A at the same time
3) Law of Excluded
Middle: A is either A or not A
4) Law of Sufficient
Reason: there should be sufficient reason to all happenings
...that somehow the process of evolution cannot "make sense"
of this? First of all, on a technical
level where we split hairs to mock someone, and as I previously mentioned, he
is right! Evolution has nothing to do
with anything other than the biological change of living organisms over
time. Once again, the author fails to
understand what he is talking about.
Now, what he meant to say is that "a godless materialistic worldview
cannot account for the Laws of Logic", in which case he would still be
mistaken. These Laws of Logic are a
verbal or written representation of an intellectual and logical framework on
how we see the world. If I hold a banana
in my hand, that particular banana... is that particular banana. It cannot, nor has it or anything like it,
simultaneously existed both in my hand as well as some other location. That banana cannot be anything other than
what it is at that specific time and place.
Yes, I very well can be expected to almost always reach a sufficient
level of understanding and reasoning as to how that banana arrived to be in the
palm of my hand at that moment. While
invoking the phrase "Laws of Logic" may sound impressive and
intellectually structured, it is no more impressive a feat of mental gymnastics
than it would be to tie your shoe. In
fact, I think it requires more structured problem solving thought to tie ones
shoe than it does to realize the absurdly simplistic standards of thinking that
are the four fundamental Laws of Logic.
To assert that these are most sacred and priceless gems of intellectual
treasure bestowed upon the human race by a vastly superior entity is absurd, disgraceful,
and expectedly self-loathing as befitting a severe masochist.
As expected, the intellectual foundation of that particular argument
completely shatters with the final statement of that paragraph: "In fact,
laws of logic cannot exist in a materialistic worldview (the philosophy that
everything is material or made up of material), because laws of logic are
non-material." ...seriously, the
consistency of the authors patterns of logic are erratic at best here, clearly
demonstrating a breakdown in comprehension and structure. I would seriously hope that this was the
authors attempt at a joke, but as I've seen through various parts of the Christian
(and various sub-groups of) sects, this is not too farfetched so I have no
choice but to read and accept this as a serious attempt to critique his
perception of that worldview. The next
point about questioning "evolutionists" on their ability to use logic
rather confirms my suspicions that what I had previously hoped was a bad joke is
in fact a very serious point. The author
asserts that because the Laws of Logic come from the Christian god, and that
since he asserts that Genesis 1:27 and Romans 1:18-20 implies that all humans (regardless
of belief status) both have the tools of logic and know god, that we are
"unwittingly relying upon the biblical worldview while simultaneously denying
it", therefore being inconsistent and finally validating the authors claim
that Evolution violates the third rule about preconditions, ultimately
"proving" that Evolution fails and Creationism wins. Seriously, go back and read that last
sentence, slowly. ...yeah.
The author continues to try and justify his position on the entire
world of science (which is now italicized in the booklet) being founded on the
"biblical worldview in order to make sense". So now the author has gone from an
examination of both "sides" to proclaiming that the opponent actually
requires his "side" in order to exist in the first place. That is a rather interesting position to
take. It is further emphasized by the
amazing statement that "In order for science to be possible, the universe
would have to operate in an orderly fashion that can be progressively
understood by the human mind." It
is in these moments of profound amazement that I find myself recalling ancient
arguments of long dead Inquisitors and religious leaders condemning knowledge
and science as an evil art of the devil, or some other abomination that
threaten their very existence and could call down plague and death if it were
to upset the gods. Amidst the centuries
of intellectual growth we have finally begun to overcome our aversion to dangerous
ideas... and I have seen a change in attitudes following an old yet pointed
phrase: "If you can't beat them, join them." Smiling quietly and pretending like it was
your idea all the while is a very strong tactic to use when trying to con
someone. It is as transparent and
telling as any parent watching a child do something silly and then exclaim that
they had meant to do it the entire time.
Special moments like this have been an amazing time for me: frustrated
astonishment at pure arrogance rising until, at a certain point, something
clicks and it all evaporates instantly into calm pity. That "something" that clicks is a
realization of a psychological state so entrenched and wound up in its own
knots as to have to struggle to make what should be one of the easiest gestures
of all.
Section 6: Conclusions
and Application
As I read the first few lines of this final section of the booklet, I
find myself smiling and nodding. As I
have anticipated from past experiences, the compelling words of those from
Young Earth Creationists that work for Answers In Genesis and those Creation
Museums, such as the author of this booklet Dr. Jason Lisle, have not exceeded
the level of expectations I've learned to set for these kinds of people talking
about this issue. Oh yes, I am quite aware of how incredibly arrogant and
self-righteous that sounds, trust me. I
wouldn't make such a statement without a great deal of justification and a long
period of exposure... which is exactly why I am completely comfortable making
it. There has been a long and sad
tradition of misrepresentation bordering on intellectual dishonesty that
plagues certain groups in particular, and the author is a part of two of the
leading examples of these intellectual embarrassments. Not only are these certain groups an
embarrassment for the United States of America on the global stage of science
where every other first world country on the planet laughs and mocks us
constantly, but these fundamentalist groups represent the last stronghold of
ancient religion fanatics who are hell bent (heh) on preserving an absurd
literalistic view of obviously wrong views.
They are bastions of the academically debunked, stubbornly refusing to
do anything but commit intellectual suicide while trying to teach others that
it is the best thing to do.
I can certainly appreciate an attempt to bolster an old and cherished
cultural heritage, but to all things there is a time and place. While I can forgive anyone for stating an
opinion, I have less forgiveness for those who try to forcefully wedge their
way into any system and strong arm their views.
And to that end, I view the Creation Museums as the best example of one
of the most intellectually dangerous minefields for any developing
country. There is no other worldview mindset
that intentionally and so blatantly lies in order to maintain its
powerbase. Thankfully, the only thing
anyone needs to do to intellectually fight such a cancerous threat is to read
many books and ask many questions.
Fundamentalism has been in an ever accelerating decline throughout the
global population for a long while, and there are bound to be holdouts. Sadly, one of those holdouts is one of the
most powerful nations: the United States of America. The freedom to ask questions is a freedom all
are born with and all should be allowed to practice. Thankfully, the internet is making that so
very easy to do... and its access is cheap and easy.
