Skip to main content

Don't Underestimate the Fool

In the years I've spent watching the walking, babbling idiocy that is young earth creationism, I have learned never to underestimate what they will do, never to be surprised at what they claim, and certainly never to think that most of those who believe this way will be open to reason. No claim is too absurd, no denial of reality too patently ridiculous for the proponents of a literal Genesis. Belief is a powerful thing, especially a belief that refuses to see objective evidence, and such are the beliefs of young earth creationism. Whether it is Ken Ham or Eric Hovind, they are united in their conviction that true Christianity requires that the Bible be taken literally, especially the creation myth of Genesis. Further, they believe that to accept, as many Christians do, that evolution is reality is to join the ranks of the compromisers, and to risk eternal damnation.
 
While there is no debate among scientists as to the fact of evolution, this has no meaning to the creationists. While Darwin's theory was at first opposed within the scientific community, acceptance of the theory by scientists today is total, and the evidence in support of it is beyond overwhelming. The evidence is powerful, but the belief of a creationist and their stubborn denial of reality is more powerful still. So to see no less a person than Richard Leakey say that critics of evolution will soon be silenced is somewhat dismaying. I've immense respect for Leakey, for both he and his parents have made discoveries crucial to advancing our understanding of the human past, but in this instance I must conclude that this notion is nothing more than wishful thinking. After all, at this point there is surely evidence enough to convince anyone with even a modicum of an open mind that evolution is historical fact, and while not every detail is clear (and scientists may quibble about certain aspects of the idea), there can be no doubt that evolution is reality, not a wild conjecture. If there remain those unconvinced that evolution is true, it is not for lack of evidence. While I wish that just one more discovery would be enough, the many discoveries that have already been made, and the stance of creationists, do not make me especially hopeful in that regard.
 
Leakey made the statement that, were all the hominid fossils lined up, "even a fool" could establish their relatedness. Never underestimate a fool, Dr. Leakey, for in discussing what you had to say the great fools at Answers in Genesis proclaimed yet again that there are no transitional fossils because creatures don't evolve into different "kinds," whatever that means. Whatever else they are, the people at Answers in Genesis are not going to be moved by the evidence; this is a matter of faith to them, and no amount of evidence will overturn their cherished convictions, especially as they seem to think that evolution is Satan in disguise trying to lure them into hell. Give a creationist that "just one transitional fossil" they always demand, and they'll simply deny it. That's what they've done thus far.
 
So why even bother then? If the diehard creationists will never be swayed, why try, and why spend time writing something like this? Simply put, of all the people who believe that the world is only six thousand years old, not all are of the same caliber as the Answers in Genesis charlatans. For many, a lack of understanding as to what evolution really is stands between them and reality. Anyone who has even a modicum of an open mind may yet be saved from ignorance. I should know: I used to be one of them.
 
To hope that young earth creationism will be eradicated is unfounded wishful thinking. At best, we may hope for and work towards their increased marginalization, so that the court cases and school board battles become a thing of the past. To imagine that this strand of denial will go extinct when more evidence is found is not at all realistic. In this battle, though, achieving the complete irrelevance of the creationists is a goal we can achieve, and, as Leakey believes, it is a goal that we must achieve if we are to face the perils that humanity must confront to survive.

Comments

  1. It doesn't help that the way they perpetuate this nonsense is lying to children through completely ridiculous explanations of evolution that no sane human being could believe. If only children were taught what evolution really is.... oh wait they already do that in many public schools, and creationists are trying to take that away too.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...