Answering "reasonable" Creationism

I'll give a bit of background info on who I am and what I do in my spare time to illustrate where I'm coming from.

In a nutshell, I'm a 23 year old college student who holds no religious beliefs and heavily researches debating styles, rhetoric, and arguments - particularly about religious topics and certain conspiracy theories. I am persuaded by evidence, preferably empirical and verifiable, but am not above changing my mind on any given topic if new or more accurate evidence is presented, contrary to my original view. I hold no underlying dogma over my decisions, I just seek to plant the seeds of healthy doubt into those who care to listen.


A topic that has been absolutely beaten to death on the internet is creationism. Whether it's Young Earth Creationism (YEC) or Ancient Earth Creationism (AEC), the main tenet is to mix religious doctrine with scientific discovery and make an internally consistent view of life and universal origins. I've been having a conversation (one-sided commentary is more like it) with Duane, from The Aristophrenium, a blog in which Christian apologetics strive to find grounding in their belief in Christ.

I'd like to point out some things here before I start addressing points.

1. I don't care what they believe in.
2. Rejecting the claim that God exists is not the same as a positive claim that God does not exist.
3. Atheism is not a world view and has no doctrine, it is simply the lack of belief in God or gods.

I posted a comment that wasn't deemed suitable by moderators, and perhaps it was a bit off topic, but these questions bear repeating, perhaps in a context of their own.

I wrote it as a response to Duane's take on the Mt. St. Helens eruption over two decades ago - he used it as a launching point for the "reasonableness" of an explanation of Noah's Flood and the act of "witnessing" to people, or proselytizing.

For that, click here (You can see a few of my comments)

Duane's Article on Aristophrenium



A further clarification: Duane, the author of the article, is a Young Earth Creationist. He has not made his personal beliefs transparent, but YECs typically believe that the Bible is a literal and accurate account of what historically took place, at least as far as Genesis is concerned. The Earth, in their view, is around 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and macroevolution - or evolution on a large scale (speciation), never occurred, as beings were created in their current states. Noah's flood actually happened, people lived with dinosaurs, and lots of other things fill this particular religious doctrine with a lot of claims to account for, not to mention problems with inconsistency.

If this is not Duane's perspective, then I apologize and I'll ask him to discuss what his views actually are.


On to the argument!


My denied comment was:

"You gave me a link of answer in genesis - something that's not exactly foreign to me. It's like that whole site strives to build up false dichotomies, make bald faced assertions and tells people that what they believe can be rationalized into a historic event.

Creationism has thus far failed to provide any relevant applications for its use, other than proselytization and preaching to the choir.

Are there any sciences that would benefit from the theories presented by creationism?

How about any peer reviewed papers by distinguished and consistently unbiased sources in favor of creationism?

Are there any theories that can be put forth in creationism that first define God, demonstrate that he exists, then demonstrate that these claims are necessarily dependent of the actions of such a deity, all with credible, verifiable evidence?

Let's all put on our "biblical glasses" - and ignore evidence to the contrary. AiG ranks up there with the "Miracles of the Quran" page and creation myths.

It saddens me that intelligent people would willingly commit to such nonsense."



I admit, it was a bit off topic, but it does contain some questions that are relevant to the discussion:

1. Are there any sciences that would benefit from the theories presented by creationism?

Clarification: Let's, for a second, grant the false dichotomy of evolution v. creation and say that evolution is absolute bunk and is a religious belief, and all the other stuff creationists usually say to further their point across. What would the applications be to a creation-based science system?

Within evolution, we have a multitude of biological disciplines, medical innovations, cosmological theories, and numerous other examples stemming from one underlying theory. (note theory is not an assumption or assertion, it is heavily based in facts and evidence and is falsifiable)


2. Are there any theories that can be put forth in creationism that first define God, demonstrate that he exists, then demonstrate that these claims are necessarily dependent of the actions of such a deity, all with credible, verifiable evidence?

Clarification: In order for you to make a claim that a God did something, you must first define such a God, then demonstrate (not assume) with credible evidence that he exists. After all, why would you make a claim regarding an entity that may not exist? The entire thing has to be internally consistent for the theory to work.



In addition, I'll address some new points Duane brought up in light of the original conversation.

Here's his reply, my text is in bold. :

"“The ideal of the coolly rational scientific observer, completely independent, free of all preconceived theories, prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments, doing investigations and coming to dispassionate, unbiased conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science (and, indeed, most scientists) as a simplistic myth.” - Professor John Lennox, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, Oxford University."

Yes, as humans, we hold biases, but that does not mean we can't form conclusions that are unbiased to the highest possible degree. Disinterestedness is a key factor in peer review, a main tenet of distinguishing fact from fantasy. A fully unbiased person is practically impossible, but that doesn't mean they can't be impartial to a certain topic.

"Just to demonstrate how misinformed Tavarish's position is on this (and there are plenty of examples like this), consider what Charles Darwin wrote in his journal while exploring the Santa Cruz river as part of his journey on the Beagle, which later included the now famous stopover at the Galapagos Islands.

"The river, though it has so little power in transporting even inconsiderable fragments, yet in the lapse of ages might produce by its gradual erosion an effect of which it is difficult to judge the amount." - link"

And once again we link to a creationist site and not a peer reviewed paper or scholarly article on the subject by an impartial source. With a slogan like "Biblical. Accurate. Certain.", they sure have science as their top priority here.

(As an aside, science is a lot of things: descriptive, predictive, reliable - but it is never certain. When a site says that they are absolutely certain of what they say from a scientific standpoint, it's time to take them with a grain of salt, even more so when the first part of the slogan has to do with religious doctrine. )

"Darwin saw the river and he applied a uniformitarian geological interpretation to what he saw. Where did he get such an idea? Are such facts so plain from a cursory observation of the rocks and the river? No, it was Lyell's uniformitarian influence. How do I know that? Because Darwin was reading Lyell's book while on the Beagle. "

Yes, Darwin read Lyell's book on the HMS Beagle, and was influenced by him heavily in his geological studies.


"Referring to his voyage on the Beagle (1831–1836), [Darwin] wrote, “I had brought with me the first volume of Lyell’s Principles of Geology, which I studied attentively; and this book was of the highest service to me in many ways. The very first place which I examined, namely St. Jago in the Cape Verde islands, showed me clearly the wonderful superiority of Lyell’s manner of treating geology, compared with that of any other author whose works I had with me or ever afterwards read.” - link"

And another creationist site. This is turning into a bit of a pattern here.

"In fact the second volume of Lyell's work, published after the Beagle left England, was sent on to Darwin in Montevideo."

Yup, Darwin was a big fan.

"As Marc has already pointed out, evidence does not interpret itself. Uniformitarianism was Darwin's framework for understanding everything he saw on that voyage, including his biological observations. Evolution by the slow and gradual process of natural selection is nothing more than uniformitarianism applied to biology."

You haven't demonstrated a damn thing. You take the fact that Darwin was wrong (whoa, shocker!) about the forming of a landmass and apply it to his theory of evolution by natural selection. Uniformitarianism, by the way, is simply put, how the " present is the key to the past".

First, the valley was formed by local glacial flooding. Here's a link to an article published and peer reviewed in a scientific journal:

-> CHARLES DARWIN AND THE OLDEST GLACIAL EVENTS
IN PATAGONIA: THE ERRATIC BLOCKS OF THE RÍO
SANTA CRUZ VALLEY <-


Second, Darwin was wrong about lots of things. His theory of evolution was incomplete and he knew nothing of DNA and the human genome.

Here's a list of his errors:

-> Darwin's Mistakes <-


If you had read the text of Darwin's work instead of quote mining, you would have understood they had to turn back due to the speed of the water. They never found the source, turning back before finding the glacial lake at the foot of the mountain.

Here's a link to the text, unabridged:

->Voyage of the Beagle <-


However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that evolution by means of natural selection is the most important construct in the natural sciences. Without this understanding, we would not have the knowledge of the world we possess today. It is backed up by mountains upon mountains of evidence, and gives the most accurate description of how life changed on this planet.

Within the study of evolutionary biology, there are plenty of controversies - whether it happened gradually or suddenly (punctuated equilibrium), morphology of certain structures, and what defines a species - but there is no controversy as to if it actually occurred or not. That's my gripe with creationists, particularly of the Young Earth variety. They will ignore an overwhelming amount of evidence, then still have the audacity to say that nothing of the sort occurred because their holy book told them it was so. It reminds me of the guy arguing with a donkey on Family Guy about if Kevin Bacon was in Footloose or not.

-> This is what it's like debating with a young earth creationist <-


A few more, for the road (My replies are in bold):

"Thomas Kuhn documents in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, that a conclusion-first approach is in fact the way ALL science works, and has always worked throughout history! Moreover, Steve Austin's floating log mat model was demonstrated to be accurate as a result of the Mount St. Helens eruption. Why doesn't that count?"

Duane's referring to me saying that science isn't necessarily dogmatic in its approach. It is quite funny to me that he can't understand the difference between constructing/testing a hypothesis from a conclusion first and rationalizing information to fit a conclusion. One is scientific, the other is not.

Also, about Steve Austin (not the wrestler):

-> Rebuttal to Steve Austin's claims on Mt. St. Helens <-


"Oh yes, ridiculing creationists. That totally helps your argument. Many AiG staff (and staff from similar ministries) hold respectable qualifications in geology and other sciences. So exactly what is it about the qualifications of people like Dr John Whitmore, Dr Graeme Mortimer, Dr Steve Austin, Dr Andrew Snelling, Dr Emil Silvestru or Dr John Morris (to name a few), that make them unqualified as an authority to publish on this topic?"

Qualification doesn't mean they're not batshit insane and hold some weird beliefs. Isaac Newton practiced alchemy, but it doesn't detract from his work in the theory of gravitation. Any scientist by himself is not a qualified authority to make a practical and definitive conclusion. The theory must pass the rigors of peer review and come out unscathed. Scientists don't just publish articles and go on their way, it must be put to the test continuously to ensure it is the most accurate description of the world around us.



One last one, I promise:

"In fact in a 2003 lecture I listened to by Steve Austin he reported that the sign at Yellowstone that glorified the uniformitarian understanding of this area has now been removed. The sign said something like; "...the forest you see there today is only the latest chapter in a remarkable story. Buried within the rock layers ... are 27 distinct layers of fossil forest that flourished 50 million years ago." A Scientific America magazine article in 1960 claimed it was proof positive of millions of years of multiple forest growth.

And then Mount St. Helens explodes and produces a multi-layer forest on the bottom of Spirit Lake in one day! No wonder they removed the sign. To quote Steve Austin, "What we saw at Mount St. Helens impacted the study of Yellowstone National Park."

That is, unless Creationists stole the sign in denial? ;) "

I offer this:

-> Review of the ICR and Steve Austin's lectures <-


-> Rebuttal of Austin's Claims regarding Coal Beds <-