I think most of us with two brain cells to rub together realize that most arguments put forth by evolution deniers are total bunk, and often don’t even agree with each other. Still, having recently read this post, I thought it would be worth summing up some of the dumber arguments made by this crowd.
This video is actually part of a longer documentary that I reviewed some time ago, but I can’t hunt up my post. (Why is Google so bad at that sometimes?) Anyway, I have to wonder at people who say Creationism “makes more sense,” like that one woman they show in the video. Think about it this way. Even the most fundamentalist of Creationists knows that, when living things produce offspring, those offspring are somewhat different from the parents. Even if there were no other evidence for evolution (which there is), it would still be extrapolating based on something we know to be true. On the other hand, when’s the last time you saw any evidence of an intelligent being creating a living thing from scratch? If you have, don’t hold out on the world, because it could be your ticket to fame and fortune. If God made every living thing individually at the beginning of the world, why isn’t He still doing that? Deists think that God set the world in motion and doesn’t interfere with it anymore. While most mainstream religions would be appalled at this idea, I’m not sure their own beliefs are all that different. Sure, they think God still intervenes, but only occasionally, like a retired guy coming back in to his old workplace when his expertise is needed. He doesn’t show up to chat with people and perform crazy magic tricks like He did when the world was young. But why, if belief in God is supposedly just as important now as it was then? He’s a tricky one, that God!
One of my favorite (in the sense of finding it particularly idiotic) lines from Creationists is that evolution teaches you’re just a hunk of primordial ooze.
Kind of hypocritical, I’d say, considering that Genesis claims the first human was made out of dirt. Is that really that much of an improvement, even if it was that fancy store-bought dirt? Some fundamentalists who have slightly more knowledge of how evolution actually works than the protoplasm preachers (sort of like how the ancient cultures that thought the world was flat and circular had slightly more knowledge than those that thought the world was flat and rectangular) will change it to something like, “Evolutionists think their grandfathers were monkeys!” Assuming they actually mean apes, I’m not entirely sure how this would be an insult even if it WERE accurate.
Sure, some apes eat their own poop, but they’re also capable of independent thought and intelligent communication. Doesn’t seem quite as bad as saying that your ancestor was made of dirt and married his own rib bone, does it? Not that it really matters, since in all of these cases the inhuman ancestor was from ages ago (albeit considerably fewer ages under Young Earth Creationism), but they’re the ones who are claiming it does!
Another problem with this idea is the other thing fundamentalists like to teach, which is that all humans are sinners who can only shake off their inherent badness with supernatural assistance. So, wait, we’re cool because our ancestors weren’t apes, but at the same time we’re terrible brutes who can’t change on our own? If the Creationist objection to evolution is that it teaches people are basically worthless, why does their own option ALSO say people are basically worthless? At least being descended from some other species doesn’t make people inherently evil, right? It’s even more ridiculous when you get stuff like in this Chick Tract, in which our Creationists insist that people who accept evolution want to make themselves into gods. So which is it? Is science overly pessimistic because it says we’re primordial ooze, or overly optimistic because it says we can become gods?
Both are untrue, but I can’t quite understand how someone can hold both ideas. That’s pretty much how it goes, though. It isn’t as important that Creationist ideas are consistent with each other (or even the Bible, really) so long as they make what they see as the competition look bad. You probably know the kind of stuff these people will come up with when backed into a corner. “Evolution is possible within kinds, but one kind can’t evolve into another!” So what, exactly, is a “kind”? It doesn’t really matter, I guess, as long as the biologists are wrong. “All fossils are the result of Noah’s Flood!” Okay, where does it say this in the Bible, and how would Noah have coated the Ark with pitch if there were no fossilized remains prior to the flood? “Evolution doesn’t explain how life came about in the first place!” Well, who said it did? “Life can’t develop from non-life!” Wait, isn’t that exactly what the Genesis account says happened? Living things were brought forth from the waters, and I presume these people don’t think water is alive. When you’re arguing two contradictory points just to counteract someone else’s theory, it seems like you’d have to realize your ideas hold no more water than a pixie’s thimble.
VoVatia 