The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[Skwim]

is that it tries to prove its validity by throwing darts at evolution . . . . Oops. Excuse me, "Darwinism." This isn't to say its underlying basis, faith in an ancient book, isn't enough to sink it forthwith, but this little aspect of their argument is assiduously avoided at all costs. Why? Because it lacks the power to convince. So, time and again those who champion evolution are subjected to chest-beating challenges such as, "You weren't there so you can't know," or "If we evolved from apes/monkeys, why are there still apes/monkeys today?" or "abiogenesis is an unproven theory," or my favorite "when you can show me a (name your animal) giving birth to a (name another animal) I'll believe in evolution." Of course, few of us care if the creationist believe us or not--- evolutionists are mainly concerned with their attempt to insinuate creationism into public schools, and, secondarily, with their attempt to pass along misinformation to the unwary.

In short then, the creationist ploy is one of, "I can't prove my side so I'll give it credibility by tearing down evolution," which (1) is hardly a compliment to the intelligence of its audience, (2) falsely assumes that if evolution is wrong, by default creationism must be true.

I know the forgoing is nothing new to most of those who visit the Evolution Vs. Creationism Forum, but I think it needs mentioning now and then to remind the evolutionist of the creationist's pitiful tactics and how futile arguing with them will likely be---entertaining as it may be.


If any creationist disputes my characterization here and finds it offensive I apologize and invite them to post a reasonable response.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

but I think it needs mentioning now and then to remind the evolutionist

I'd rather argue doing away with that silly, absurd, and obnoxious term that exists in the modern lexicon only because Creationists wanted to attempt to "lower" evolution to a faith-based belief to put it on par with their belief system.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'd rather argue doing away with that silly, absurd, and obnoxious term that exists in the modern lexicon only because Creationists wanted to attempt to "lower" evolution to a faith-based belief to put it on par with their belief system.

Damned gravitationists/newtonists need to keep in mind that gravity is just a theory.

 

[Skwim]

I'd rather argue doing away with that silly, absurd, and obnoxious term that exists in the modern lexicon only because Creationists wanted to attempt to "lower" evolution to a faith-based belief to put it on par with their belief system.

No problem. Please feel free to substitute your own term. Evolutionist. Rather:____________.

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No problem. Please feel free to substitute your own term. Evolutionist. Rather:____________.

.

No term is needed. We don't have "Dopplerist" or "Magnetists" or "Gravitationists" or "Ohmists." Should we be "DNAist" and "Germists" and "Oxygen Combustibilists?" Of course not.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I'd rather argue doing away with that silly, absurd, and obnoxious term that exists in the modern lexicon only because Creationists wanted to attempt to "lower" evolution to a faith-based belief to put it on par with their belief system.

Really? I had no idea that "creationists" had so much pull with English-language dictionaries like the Cambridge and Oxford fellows.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No term is needed.

Yes, one is needed. In fact, an appellation even more narrowed: how about Macroevolutionist?

We don't have "Dopplerist" or "Magnetists" or "Gravitationists" or "Ohmists."

No we don't. But we do have "archaeologist", "geologist", "paleontologist", "anthropologist", etc.

Not all biologists support CD. Lol.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, one is needed. In fact, an appellation even more narrowed: how about Macroevolutionist?



No we don't. But we do have "archaeologist", "geologist", "paleontologist", "anthropologist", etc.

Not all biologists support CD. Lol.

And we have "atomist", of course, too.

According to my OED, the term "evolutionist" dates from the time of Darwin himself, who uses the term in Origin of Species. As with the atomists, at the time it represented one school of thought among several about the origin of species.

Again as with atomism, evolution is now so dominant that it is antiquated to use the term "evolutionist" today. Every biological scientist, barring the odd crank or ID charlatan, accepts evolution, just as you you would be hard put today to find a scientist who was sceptical about atoms.

 

[Jumi]

Again as with atomism, evolution is now so dominant that it is antiquated to use the term "evolutionist" today. Every biological scientist, barring the odd crank or ID charlatan, accepts evolution, just as you you would be hard put today to find a scientist who was sceptical about atoms.

Those atomic theory skeptics did go awfully quiet long ago. If anyone hears of them today, it feels quite embarassing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is one term that does cover evolutionists, atomists, germists, and even Ohmists:

Realists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is one term that does cover evolutionists, atomists, germists, and even Ohmists:

Realists.

 

[Earthling]

The creationist's argument greatest weakness is that they are not very accurate in their interpretation of Genesis. For further details see my own Bible By Chapter - Genesis Chapter 1

But now, let's talk about you. Why is it more important for you to concentrate on Creationists when you could be concentrating on learning or, even doing, science?

 

[Polymath257]

The creationist's argument greatest weakness is that they are not very accurate in their interpretation of Genesis. For further details see my own Bible By Chapter - Genesis Chapter 1

But now, let's talk about you. Why is it more important for you to concentrate on Creationists when you could be concentrating on learning or, even doing, science?

Well, unfortunately, the creationists are attempting to get their nonsense put into schools. 'Teach the controversy' or 'balanced education'. The problem is that there *is* no controversy in the science. The only controversy is political: whether to teach the real science as opposed to the ID and creationist nonsense.

 

[shunyadragon]

Really? I had no idea that "creationists" had so much pull with English-language dictionaries like the Cambridge and Oxford fellows.

It is the miss use of the English language by selective use of terns to justify a religious agenda based on ancient mythology that is the problem. Apealing the Cambridge and Oxford fellows does ot help your case, because they have no intention of supporting fundamentalist creationists.

 

[Earthling]

Well, unfortunately, the creationists are attempting to get their nonsense put into schools. 'Teach the controversy' or 'balanced education'. The problem is that there *is* no controversy in the science. The only controversy is political: whether to teach the real science as opposed to the ID and creationist nonsense.

it has been my experience in religion and everything else that when fanatics can't stand the competition and insist, one way or another, that their take on the truth is exclusive, it's a definite red flag.

Modern day public education is a result of the robber barons of the late 19th century dumbing down the lazy apathetic populace in order to make themselves more rich. Pretty much every thing they teach is nonsense. Having said that I don't see where teaching evolution in school creates any conflict with the robber baron's agenda, but creation? I would rather not have the underpaid troglodytes of academia that teach in public schools to muck about with creation. The creationists have done enough damage as it is.

One could suggest that the two contentions be taught only in college but those quasi sacred grounds are hardly bastions of free speech and independent thinking these days. There, once the alcoholic stupor and cannabis fog had subsided the political pontification may be exposed.

We certainly wouldn't want that. Critical thinking is such an obvious danger to the traditional modern day science and religion.

 

[Audie]

it has been my experience in religion and everything else that when fanatics can't stand the competition and insist, one way or another, that their take on the truth is exclusive, it's a definite red flag.

Modern day public education is a result of the robber barons of the late 19th century dumbing down the lazy apathetic populace in order to make themselves more rich. Pretty much every thing they teach is nonsense. Having said that I don't see where teaching evolution in school creates any conflict with the robber baron's agenda, but creation? I would rather not have the underpaid troglodytes of academia that teach the stuff to muck about with creation. The creationists have done enough damage as it is.

One could suggest that the two contentions be taught only in college but those quasi sacred grounds are hardly bastions of free speech and independent thinking these days. There, once the alcoholic stupor and cannabis fog had subsided the political pontification may be exposed.

We certainly wouldn't want that. Critical thinking is such an obvious danger to the traditional modern day science and religion.

Critical thinking is a danger to science. Right.

 

[Earthling]

Critical thinking is a danger to science. Right.

Open your eyes.

 

[Audie]

Open your eyes.

Even eyes half shut with sleep will see how
you just say things. You toss out some nonsense,
and when it is disputed, off you go to start another
thread with a new batch of baseless, unsupportable
assertions.

 

[shunyadragon]

it has been my experience in religion and everything else that when fanatics can't stand the competition and insist, one way or another, that their take on the truth is exclusive, it's a definite red flag.

Modern day public education is a result of the robber barons of the late 19th century dumbing down the lazy apathetic populace in order to make themselves more rich. Pretty much every thing they teach is nonsense. Having said that I don't see where teaching evolution in school creates any conflict with the robber baron's agenda, but creation? I would rather not have the underpaid troglodytes of academia that teach in public schools to muck about with creation. The creationists have done enough damage as it is.

One could suggest that the two contentions be taught only in college but those quasi sacred grounds are hardly bastions of free speech and independent thinking these days. There, once the alcoholic stupor and cannabis fog had subsided the political pontification may be exposed.

We certainly wouldn't want that. Critical thinking is such an obvious danger to the traditional modern day science and religion.

There is a lot of excess commentary here that is not meaningful. Needs clarification concerning science here. The lack of critical thinking from religious agendas is what threatens science.

I asked for this clariification on your views on science before, and it was not forth coming.

 

[Earthling]

Even eyes half shut with sleep will see how
you just say things. You toss out some nonsense,
and when it is disputed, off you go to start another
thread with a new batch of baseless, unsupportable
assertions.

Uh-huh.