One of the most charming things about Answers in Genesis is a series of articles they call "Arguments Christians Shouldn't Use," citing a number of arguments that young-earth creationists might use in defense of a literal reading of Genesis that even the charlatans at AiG don't think are good arguments. This is, to anyone who has read the standard fare of this organization, ironic in the extreme. A quick glance over the list of these "bad arguments" reveals claims that most defenders of evolution have heard before in one form or another, ranging from the simply inane ("If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today?") to those that are outright lies (The infamous "Darwin Deathbed Conversion" fraud).
The ordinary creationist might be forgiven for seeing Answers dismiss these patently bad arguments and thinking that, since the organization isn't willing to use just any argument to advance their claims, Ken Ham and all the rest are only concerned with having good, solid arguments in support of their ideas. Except, of course, they are not. If the point of listing bad creationist arguments was to try make the arguments of Answers more legitimate, then the pseudo-scientists have failed to do anything except give members of the reality-based community more to laugh at. Thank you, we appreciate the constant dose of humor, we really do, but stop already. Too much more of this and some of us may well die of laughter! It isn't that there are a handful of bad creationist arguments and the rest are good; every creationist argument is bad, from "creationist" scientists like Newton who lived centuries before Darwin to dinosaurs on the Ark to the "evil" consequences of evolution to the need to lie to children for their own good! Don't let this smoke and mirrors act fool you; there can be no good creationist argument because creationism itself is an unscientific, uninformed notion that has no basis in reality.
Creationism is untenable precisely because arguments are the basis of their self-justification. If the ideas of young earth creationism had any merit, the proponents of those ideas wouldn't need to rely on arguments. They would point to the evidence, they would get their ideas published in scientific journals that are peer-reviewed by others in the field, they would stop this persecution mentality that they are so enamored of, and they certainly wouldn't have to rely on articles written by medical professionals posing as credentialed scientists. Sorry, Dr. Mitchell, but having a degree in medicine allows you to refer to yourself as a doctor or as a physician, not a "scientist."
If the creationists really wanted to be perfectly honest and to separate themselves from bad arguments, they might just come out and admit that no amount of evidence would sway them. For, at heart, the position of many young-earth creationists is one of faith, one upon which they believe their eternal salvation at least partly depends. They are unlikely to be swayed by mere evidence. All the same, this is no reason to give up or to stop the fight. Not every young-earth creationist is on the same level as Ken Ham; there are many who, I must believe, simply never received a good education in what evolution actually is and what the evidence is for it. Show them the evidence, give it some time, and even a diehard creationist might well evolve out of primitive superstition into the light of sound science.
Cute, the fools.
ReplyDelete