I always enjoy reading the Creation Moments daily propaganda, because, after all, the news some days is hardly entertainment enough. Thus I'm compelled to look elsewhere for a bit of humor, and the creationists are an unending wellspring of laughs. One of the newest, one that was forwarded to me, is no exception. "Faith: Christ or Man?" the organization asks, repeating one of the favorite Young-Earth canards. Implied in this question is that you must choose; will you accept fundamentalist Christian faith or the feeble science of Man? Also implied is that the godless scientists have rejected Christ by arguing that evolution is true...and they are bold enough to say they have evidence for this "fairy tale" too! How scandalous! When it comes right down to it, in spite of their public statements, creationists have chosen "Man", just as they accuse scientists of having done. I will elaborate on this point in Part Two.
For this post, suffice it to say that the Young-Earth Creationists, always up for a round of quote-mining to give the impression that real scientists support their work, go to great lengths to imply that many scientists agree with them. They cite Karl Popper, alleging that he said "Darwinism" wasn't science; the truth is slightly more complex. Popper, that famous philosopher of science, said that natural selection was only testable to a small extent, but was useful nonetheless. Hardly the outright, bold condemnation of evolution that creationists keep asserting he said. Talkorigins.org has a fuller rebuttal of the creationist take on Popper with an extended quote by the philosopher calling the theory of evolution "invaluable."
They claim that one Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History admitted that this [not specified, but I assume they mean that evolution isn't a theory and cannot be tested] is true. However, creationists have a long history of quote-mining from Patterson, and he strenuously denies having made the claims creationists assert that he made. They were taken out of context from what he actually meant.
The last quote-mining is a creationist favorite; using the arguments of Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould about punctuated equilibrium to argue that evolution isn't true and that the two respected scientists basically admitted that there are no transitional fossils. Nothing could be further from the truth. Punctuated equilibrium, whether one accepts this or not (and a number of scientists have objections to it), does not imply that organisms appear with no ancestors in the fossil record. More correctly, Gould argued that the fossil record shows numerous transitional fossils at the higher levels of evolution, from fish to land amphibians, for instance, but few transitional fossils at the species level. The quote generally mined to support the creationist assertion about Gould's ideas is more correctly rendered here.
Sad to see that creationists can't seem to find new scientists to quote-mine. The Gould quote is over twenty years old at this point, the Popper quote even older. The conclusion that Creation Moments draws from this is erroneous. "Our conclusion must be that even the experts, in moments of honesty -- when they know they won't be quoted in the press -- admit that evolution is no more than a faith. We creationists will report what the press does not. Evolution is a faith."
What utter rubbish. If we've been able to come to any conclusion, it is that Young-Earth Creationists will resort to whatever measure, however dishonest, to make themselves look valid while condemning the good science of evolution. Shame on these self-appointed defenders of Jesus, to engage in such grotesque lies! Do they really think their Lord will smile on them for openly and unashamedly lying in his name?
Scientists didn't make these statements in secret; Karl Popper's philosophy of science is well-known and well-studied, and the work of Gould and Eldredge on punctuated equilibrium is some of their best-known. Hardly the work of a secretive cabal bent on fooling the public, as the deluded creationists must think!
The track record of science is strong; from uncovering the physical laws that govern the universe to electricity, to vaccines that save millions of lives, the eradication of smallpox, the satellites that power our phones and allow us to watch the weather in real time, to the cars that we drive nearly everyday, science has improved our lives in so many ways in so short a time. If you want to condemn scientists for pointing out that man shares a common ancestor with chimps and orangutans as the "fallible work of Man", but go on to turn on the lights, go see the doctor or make a call on your cell phone, you are being hypocritical. If the work of "Man" is good enough in everything else, why not in evolution as well?
For this post, suffice it to say that the Young-Earth Creationists, always up for a round of quote-mining to give the impression that real scientists support their work, go to great lengths to imply that many scientists agree with them. They cite Karl Popper, alleging that he said "Darwinism" wasn't science; the truth is slightly more complex. Popper, that famous philosopher of science, said that natural selection was only testable to a small extent, but was useful nonetheless. Hardly the outright, bold condemnation of evolution that creationists keep asserting he said. Talkorigins.org has a fuller rebuttal of the creationist take on Popper with an extended quote by the philosopher calling the theory of evolution "invaluable."
They claim that one Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History admitted that this [not specified, but I assume they mean that evolution isn't a theory and cannot be tested] is true. However, creationists have a long history of quote-mining from Patterson, and he strenuously denies having made the claims creationists assert that he made. They were taken out of context from what he actually meant.
The last quote-mining is a creationist favorite; using the arguments of Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould about punctuated equilibrium to argue that evolution isn't true and that the two respected scientists basically admitted that there are no transitional fossils. Nothing could be further from the truth. Punctuated equilibrium, whether one accepts this or not (and a number of scientists have objections to it), does not imply that organisms appear with no ancestors in the fossil record. More correctly, Gould argued that the fossil record shows numerous transitional fossils at the higher levels of evolution, from fish to land amphibians, for instance, but few transitional fossils at the species level. The quote generally mined to support the creationist assertion about Gould's ideas is more correctly rendered here.
Sad to see that creationists can't seem to find new scientists to quote-mine. The Gould quote is over twenty years old at this point, the Popper quote even older. The conclusion that Creation Moments draws from this is erroneous. "Our conclusion must be that even the experts, in moments of honesty -- when they know they won't be quoted in the press -- admit that evolution is no more than a faith. We creationists will report what the press does not. Evolution is a faith."
What utter rubbish. If we've been able to come to any conclusion, it is that Young-Earth Creationists will resort to whatever measure, however dishonest, to make themselves look valid while condemning the good science of evolution. Shame on these self-appointed defenders of Jesus, to engage in such grotesque lies! Do they really think their Lord will smile on them for openly and unashamedly lying in his name?
Scientists didn't make these statements in secret; Karl Popper's philosophy of science is well-known and well-studied, and the work of Gould and Eldredge on punctuated equilibrium is some of their best-known. Hardly the work of a secretive cabal bent on fooling the public, as the deluded creationists must think!
The track record of science is strong; from uncovering the physical laws that govern the universe to electricity, to vaccines that save millions of lives, the eradication of smallpox, the satellites that power our phones and allow us to watch the weather in real time, to the cars that we drive nearly everyday, science has improved our lives in so many ways in so short a time. If you want to condemn scientists for pointing out that man shares a common ancestor with chimps and orangutans as the "fallible work of Man", but go on to turn on the lights, go see the doctor or make a call on your cell phone, you are being hypocritical. If the work of "Man" is good enough in everything else, why not in evolution as well?
Comments
Post a Comment