If Evolution Is Wrong ... Why Does Creationism Win By Default!?

[gnostic]

Creationism is never right, because creationism is based on ignorance and superstition.

Scriptures, like the bible and the Qur'an don't explain anything, so it isn't science.

Belief in creations and miracles are taken on as faith, not facts. And facts required evidences, not faith.

Evolution not only provide explanations for different mechanisms within evolution (eg Mutation, Natural Selection, Gene Flow, etc), there are evidences to support each mechanism.

I think the main problem with creationists, is they make mistaken assumption that evolution about the origin of first life.

As the study of viruses and viral diseases indicated, understanding the concept of evolution in relation to viruses, don't require biologists to study the very first virus. Viruses and how new strains of virus react to vaccines, by developing resistance or even immunity against the vaccines, are real-life examples of Natural Selection taking place. That's evidence for Natural Selection.

Does the Qur'an or bible explain anything about viruses, vaccines and immunity?

And how does the bible and Qur'an explain insanity, and why or how people suffer from mental or behaviour problems, or how they treat them?

The bible treats madness as those who are inflicted by evil spirits (eg King Saul's paranoia) or demon possession (in the gospels). The cure in the gospels, is exorcism. That's great for myth and for horror fiction, but in real life demons, jinns and evil spirits are nothing more than superstitious fairytales.

There are no evidences these mythological beings that inflicted insanity.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Let's think about this.

We have an abundance of fossilized remains for tens of thousands (or more) life forms that once inhabited earth but no longer do. All of these different remains are found in different depths all around the globe; which, by itself, suggests that they did not all coexist; a suggestion which is strongly confirmed by multitudes of dating methods. Also fascinating is that we find an absence of fossilized remains of different organisms (most notably but not exclusively) modern organisms and mammalia that date to the ages of most of these creatures. No Tyrannosaurus remains are found as deep or as old as we find Tiktaalik; no Human remains are found as deep or as old as Tyrannosaurus.

This leads to a very strong logical conclusion that life forms on earth appear and disappear during different periods of our long geological history.

What is the explanation for this?

Let's assume, just for sake of argument, that Evolution is not the explanation for this. Just for sake of argument.

Well, even with that being the case, the logical conclusion is: Neither is Creationism. Spontaneous Generation, with or without "divine intervention", has been dis-proven; it doesn't exist; it doesn't happen; and this, with plentiful research and even experimentation. There are no scriptural references of God creating; then destroying; then creating again. Not even Noah's Ark; as I guess there must have been dinosaurs on that ark? Point is, there are no references nor evidence of multiple creations, scriptural or otherwise.

So by what audacity and reasoning does one suppose that if Evolution is false, Creationism wins by default!?

For Darwin, the future discovery of smooth transitions, filling the gaps between species was crucial to his theory, because many tiny gradual steps were required to overcome the need for design

So it is by his reasoning that creationism is already better supported by the fossil record, which shows in contrast the abrupt appearances of highly evolved species.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

So it is by his reasoning that creationism is already better supported by the fossil record, which shows in contrast the abrupt appearances of highly evolved species.

Ah, but why does Creationism by deities necessarily win, though? See, I'm not going to argue the tons of evidence for which you avoid in order to misquote Dawkins about the Cambrian explosion.

Perhaps Evolution is true; and the "sudden appearance of complex species" is explained by panspermia or more than one abiogenesis event (ushering in several lines of common descent by evolutionary means) or other possibilities yet unrealized?

It has already been stipulated in the OP that we take for granted, in this thread, that "evolution is wrong". With that being the case, why does divine creation win by default?

I hold that you have failed to answer that question.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah, but why does Creationism by deities necessarily win, though? See, I'm not going to argue the tons of evidence for which you avoid in order to misquote Dawkins about the Cambrian explosion.

Perhaps Evolution is true; and the "sudden appearance of complex species" is explained by panspermia or more than one abiogenesis event (ushering in several lines of common descent by evolutionary means) or other possibilities yet unrealized?

It has already been stipulated in the OP that we take for granted, in this thread, that "evolution is wrong". With that being the case, why does divine creation win by default?

I hold that you have failed to answer that question.

It's a debatable subjective question obviously, but my point was that you could argue this assertion with the world's most prominent Darwinists, they acknowledge the dichotomy between the theory and design repeatedly

"The old argument of design in nature, [] which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered", Darwin

i.e., without Darwinism- the argument of design in nature is conclusive

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.6

i.e., without Darwinism- you can't be!

Doesn't get much clearer than that! But your hypothetical is correct, in that these acknowledgments would vanish very quickly if forced to accept the failure of Darwinism



This is parallel with our old steady state scenario, where atheists constantly make the claim that their theory is in direct competition with God- until it fails, and then the dichotomy vanishes.

Heads we win, tails.... doesn't count.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

"The old argument of design in nature, [] which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered", Darwin

i.e., without Darwinism- the argument of design in nature is conclusive

Acknowledging this comparison does not necessarily constitute a dichotomy. Remember, we are proceeding on the premise that evolution is false. In doing so, we assume that we have found conclusive evidence that shoots Evolution in the foot.

Creationism, however, remains an assumption. If you and I were to argue a mathematical equation: I claim that 2+2=6 and you claim that 2+2=3; and you prove to me by laying out apples and counting them out that 2+2<>6; then by what rights can you claim that 2+2=3?

To claim Creationism as true, you must prove creationism; not merely disprove Evolution.

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.6

i.e., without Darwinism- you can't be!

This is utterly laughable.

This postulates that somehow, Darwin was the father of atheism.

Why do you continue to live in your delusionary world of constantly rewriting history?

Here:

"Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life." -- Aristotle

Moreover, Darwin may have been the first to put the clues together, but there were many considering the origin of the species in ways that preclude creationism; and had done so before Darwin:

"Do we not therefore perceive that by the action of the laws of organization . . . nature has in favorable times, places, and climates multiplied her first germs of animality, given place to developments of their organizations, . . . and increased and diversified their organs? Then. . . aided by much time and by a slow but constant diversity of circumstances, she has gradually brought about in this respect the state of things which we now observe. How grand is this consideration, and especially how remote is it from all that is generally thought on this subject!" -- Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829)

You make Darwin sound like the founder of thoughts that didn't exist before him.

This is as utterly false as ...

This is parallel with our old steady state scenario, where atheists constantly make the claim that their theory is in direct competition with God- until it fails, and then the dichotomy vanishes.

... which you have been repeatedly schooled, complete with links, quotes and sources, advising you that the parallel you draw between atheism=steady state is about as intelligent and accurate as "Darwin is the father of atheism'.


But alas. Back to the point.

You have still failed to convince me why creationism wins because, in this thought experiment, evolution fails.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Acknowledging this comparison does not necessarily constitute a dichotomy. Remember, we are proceeding on the premise that evolution is false. In doing so, we assume that we have found conclusive evidence that shoots Evolution in the foot.

Creationism, however, remains an assumption. If you and I were to argue a mathematical equation: I claim that 2+2=6 and you claim that 2+2=3; and you prove to me by laying out apples and counting them out that 2+2<>6; then by what rights can you claim that 2+2=3?

To claim Creationism as true, you must prove creationism; not merely disprove Evolution.

Darwin's dichotomy, not mine. If introducing Darwinism weakens the argument for God, then removing Darwinism again does the reverse. We can't prove either

This is utterly laughable.

This postulates that somehow, Darwin was the father of atheism.

Why do you continue to live in your delusionary world of constantly rewriting history?

It was Dawkins statement, you'd have to ask him- if introducing Darwinism makes the atheist intellectually fulfilled, then it's failure reverses that

But alas. Back to the point.

You have still failed to convince me why creationism wins because, in this thought experiment, evolution fails.

I'm obviously not going to convince you, I'm just pointing out that its a belief shared and reiterated by many atheists and Darwinists. Take away evolution and you inherently weaken the argument for atheism.

I can't speak for them entirely when it comes to their rationale for this, but it seems fairly unambiguous. Evolution was an attempt to account for life by purely natural processes, without any creative input, take it away and the argument for ID is stronger- Darwin even called it 'conclusive' though I might not go that far- I'm not sure we can ever be that certain either way

 

[idav]

So by what audacity and reasoning does one suppose that if Evolution is false, Creationism wins by default!?

Creation doesn't win by default. Denying evolution and preaching creationism as the only truth relies on several arguments from ignorance fallacies. Those are automatic fails in my book.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Guy has actually helped me understand why they feel Creationism would win by default.

In their minds, there is this dichotomy and this dichotomy only; thus if one wins, the other must lose. There is no middle ground and there are no other possibilities.

I think I understand now.

I'm obviously not going to convince you, I'm just pointing out that its a belief shared and reiterated by many atheists and Darwinists. Take away evolution and you inherently weaken the argument for atheism.

Where does atheism come into play here? Cripes. I forgot who I was talking too. And of course, we will continue to ignore the fact that there were atheists before Darwin.

Evolution was an attempt to account for life by purely natural processes, without any creative input, take it away and the argument for ID is stronger- Darwin even called it 'conclusive' though I might not go that far- I'm not sure we can ever be that certain either way

Darwin did not call it conclusive. According to your own quote, he said that ti seemed conclusive until the discovery of new evidence. You are quote mining again.

Darwin was a creationist and a theist. So the idea that he "set out to disprove" a strongly held belief is yet one more example of you twisting and rewriting history beyond recognition.

 

[Skwim]

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.6

i.e., without Darwinism- you can't be!

Doesn't get much clearer than that!

Your quote mining is pathetic. The full quote:

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
​

I know you may not be able to grasp the significance of the context, but for those who can it makes you look pretty. . . . . . well, I'll leave it to them to make of you what they will.


.

 

[Skwim]

Why do you keep doing that? You do realize that there are creation myths that have a mother and a father deity don't you? Just because your preferred mythology has one creator doesn't mean that's the only way one can be thought of.

He keeps doing it because his back is up against the wall, and has no decent reply.


.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Did Moses part the Red Sea?
I think so and there is scientific speculation on how this was done.
Google it.

The "RED SEA" is incorrect.
According to many sources it was the Sea or Reeds.
In other words a really big swamp.
"Best Answer: The translation Sea of Reeds is given as an alternate to Red Sea in many Study Bible foot notes for the Hebrew Yam Suph. Since reeds only grow in fresh water, scholars have looked for centuries for a fresh water lake the Israelites could have crossed and of course none exists.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080128190254AAbc05u

But a more accurate translation of the Hebrew word would be seaweed and of course this grows in salt water. So the Hebrew phrase Yam Suph really doesn't mean Red Sea or Sea of Reeds, it means Sea of Seaweed. The name Red Sea probably stems from its proximity to Edom, the land occupied by the descendants of Esau, whose name in Hebrew means Red."

As usual for me to say: Google it up fer yerself and make up yer own noodle.

I've read loads of these secondary explanations before. The problem with them, which many believers fail to recognize in their haste to feel faithfully validated, is that a gentle parting of the "Sea of Seaweed" or the "Sea of Reeds" is not really miraculous in anyway. A light breeze coming over the water, or a low tide during a dry month, don't really show the power of an Omnipotent Creator God, do they? They can readily be explained away by very normal and mundane circumstances, which is hardly the narrative of almost anything in the Bible.

It's good that you're realizing that these stories are fantastic an mystical in nature, to the point of being unbelievable. But supplanting the fantastic and mystical nature of the stories with something more logically palpable undermines the potency of the stories themselves, don't you think?

 

[gnostic]

Why do you keep doing that? You do realize that there are creation myths that have a mother and a father deity don't you? Just because your preferred mythology has one creator doesn't mean that's the only way one can be thought of.

Even though mainstream Christians in the early church considered Gnosticism as a heretic cult, some groups or sects of Gnosticism are essentially "Christian".

And the Sethian Gnostics view that there are feminine creative principles (eg The Apocryphon of John and The Hypostasise of the Archons) involved in the Creation, like Barbelo and Sophia (Wisdom). So essentially they were goddesses and mothers, and playes vital roles in the above texts that I have listed.

 

[dianaiad]

Speaking only hypothetically, if evolution had turned out to be wrong then some other way of life on Earth getting here could have happened instead of divine creation of that life. We could have all been put here by aliens (who also fabricated the fossil record). It's a completely unsupported idea, of course. The point being that evolution being wrong doesn't make creationism right because some other, not yet considered, third theory could one day come into being.

1. Where did the aliens come from? All the 'aliens did it!" theory does is kick the can down the road.

............mind you, the theory of evolution does NOT mean that God didn't 'do it,' y'know. What the OP is doing is a common error; confusing evolution with biogenesis, or the creation of the universe. The theory of evolution doesn't kick in until AFTER the creation of the universe, and of life. Y'all need to go back at least one more step.

2. So the real choice isn't between 'evolutionism' and 'creationism,' because quite a few people who think that God was responsible for the creation of the universe also have no problems at all with the theory of evolution. Me, for one. The real choice is a true dichotomy; either the universe was created by something or Someone, or it wasn't. If anybody can come up with a third option here, I would truly like to hear it.

 

[Sapiens]

Did Moses part the Red Sea?
I think so and there is scientific speculation on how this was done.
Google it.

The "RED SEA" is incorrect.
According to many sources it was the Sea or Reeds.
In other words a really big swamp.
"Best Answer: The translation Sea of Reeds is given as an alternate to Red Sea in many Study Bible foot notes for the Hebrew Yam Suph. Since reeds only grow in fresh water, scholars have looked for centuries for a fresh water lake the Israelites could have crossed and of course none exists.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080128190254AAbc05u

But a more accurate translation of the Hebrew word would be seaweed and of course this grows in salt water. So the Hebrew phrase Yam Suph really doesn't mean Red Sea or Sea of Reeds, it means Sea of Seaweed. The name Red Sea probably stems from its proximity to Edom, the land occupied by the descendants of Esau, whose name in Hebrew means Red."

As usual for me to say: Google it up fer yerself and make up yer own noodle.

That's all real nice, but you are hard pressed to go with Exodus of any sort in light of the complete absence of any creditable archaeological evidence of the event.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

What the OP is doing is a common error; confusing evolution with biogenesis, or the creation of the universe. The theory of evolution doesn't kick in until AFTER the creation of the universe, and of life. Y'all need to go back at least one more step.

At what point in my OP did I mention the origin of life or the origin of the universe? As I reread my post, I find only references to origin of the species. Contrary to what you may have perceived, I do understand the differences between the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

In the purest, most fanatical forms of "creationism", there is no "evolution" (or at least no "macroevolution") and all that was and is was created as is in 6 literal 24 hour days by the will and word of an omnipotent deity. This form of "creationism" holds "evolution" to be false in its entirety; and for that we don't have to turn back the clock to abiogensis, astrophysics or the Big Bang.

It's nice to see a theist who has some awareness of things of this nature; in forums like this, it tends to be a rarity.

But for you, specifically, I would query as to what you do believe; specifically about the origin of life and the origin of the universe.

As far as a 3rd option, that has also been explained as this being an hypothetical; while it was not included in my text above (but should have been) references to 3rd yet unimagined possibilities; but the same was mentioned by another poster.

So from what I gather from your post; as there are only 2 known possibilities for the origin of the species: "Evolution" or "Creationism" (spontaneous formation of the species); then based on the lack of other unknown or unimagined possibilities; then for you, Creationism does win by default? So if Evolution were found to be untrue, you would then hold that "well, since THAT theory went down the tubes, then Creationism wins because it's the only other known option". Am I correct in this conclusion?

 

[Parsimony]

1. Where did the aliens come from? All the 'aliens did it!" theory does is kick the can down the road.

Whether the aliens evolved, were divinely created or appeared spontaneously would still be incompatible with creationism as it is commonly used: that humans were divinely created.

 

[dianaiad]

Whether the aliens evolved, were divinely created or appeared spontaneously would still be incompatible with creationism as it is commonly used: that humans were divinely created.

moving the goalposts there, Parsimony. At least, I think so. Let's back up. If all you are doing is arguing against a specific VERSION of Creationism, then you need to say so. If you are, then conversation about it is rather useless; no matter what someone comes up with, you can always switch to a different version of creationist thought. The problem here, though, is that disproving ONE version of creationist thought does not disprove all the others and prove that no God 'did it."

.........and yes, I am aware that an inability to prove that a God did NOT 'create all things" does not prove that one did.

I'm going all the way back to the essentials. Either the universe (including us) was a creation of something or someone, (however it may have been done) or it wasn't. Can you really think of a third option? I can't, but I'd be really intrigued if you can. Truly. I'd love to hear one. I hate dichotomies in general and would like to know of a third option.

 

[dianaiad]

At what point in my OP did I mention the origin of life or the origin of the universe? As I reread my post, I find only references to origin of the species. Contrary to what you may have perceived, I do understand the differences between the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

In the purest, most fanatical forms of "creationism", there is no "evolution" (or at least no "macroevolution") and all that was and is was created as is in 6 literal 24 hour days by the will and word of an omnipotent deity. This form of "creationism" holds "evolution" to be false in its entirety; and for that we don't have to turn back the clock to abiogensis, astrophysics or the Big Bang.

It's nice to see a theist who has some awareness of things of this nature; in forums like this, it tends to be a rarity.

But for you, specifically, I would query as to what you do believe; specifically about the origin of life and the origin of the universe.

As far as a 3rd option, that has also been explained as this being an hypothetical; while it was not included in my text above (but should have been) references to 3rd yet unimagined possibilities; but the same was mentioned by another poster.

So from what I gather from your post; as there are only 2 known possibilities for the origin of the species: "Evolution" or "Creationism" (spontaneous formation of the species); then based on the lack of other unknown or unimagined possibilities; then for you, Creationism does win by default? So if Evolution were found to be untrue, you would then hold that "well, since THAT theory went down the tubes, then Creationism wins because it's the only other known option". Am I correct in this conclusion?

Actually, there is no 'default win' as far as proof here is concerned, or at least as far as your proposition is concerned. If one can't prove one possibility, it means only that the other option is still open, NOT that it 'must be true.'

Isn't this little like Schroedinger's cat? (only a little and not really, but bear with me) If we can't absolutely PROVE one idea, then both are still possible.

Or...hmmn.

I can't absolutely disprove that it isn't raining in the Atacama right now. (Someone else can, and it almost certainly isn't, but again, stay with me)
That does NOT mean that the Atacama is now a lake.

Therefore, based on 'the lack of unknown or un-imagined possibilities,' all we have is a lack of unknown or un-imagined possibilities, not proof that creationism (especially the 24/7 biblical literalist form you seem to be concentrating on) is TRUE, by gum.

There are many forms of 'creationism' thought, from a vague form of deism to this micromanaging creationism held to by some evangelical Christians. Me? I'm a theist. I do indeed believe that God created the universe, AND us. However, I'm not stupid enough to dictate to HIM the methods by which He managed that. For me, 'science' is delightfully wondrous, and every time I see something new discovered through science, my gleeful thought is 'so THAT'S how He did it! What can we figure out next?"

But then I come from a faith tradition that tells us that we are supposed to figure that stuff out for ourselves and take joy in the discoveries.

And I'm not illogical enough to think that any inability to prove that there is no deity means that there must be one. (shrug) My belief in God comes from a very different direction.

 

[Parsimony]

moving the goalposts there, Parsimony. At least, I think so. Let's back up. If all you are doing is arguing against a specific VERSION of Creationism, then you need to say so. If you are, then conversation about it is rather useless; no matter what someone comes up with, you can always switch to a different version of creationist thought. The problem here, though, is that disproving ONE version of creationist thought does not disprove all the others and prove that no God 'did it."

.........and yes, I am aware that an inability to prove that a God did NOT 'create all things" does not prove that one did.

I'm going all the way back to the essentials. Either the universe (including us) was a creation of something or someone, (however it may have been done) or it wasn't. Can you really think of a third option? I can't, but I'd be really intrigued if you can. Truly. I'd love to hear one. I hate dichotomies in general and would like to know of a third option.

How am I moving the goalposts? I was always talking about creationism as it is commonly defined (at least in the United States): God created the universe, the Earth and all life on it through supernatural power as opposed to natural mechanisms. In a more loose sense, yes, creationism can be defined solely as the idea that God created the Universe and nothing more than that. If you go by that, then evolution and abiogenesis are compatible with that definition of creationism.

 

[dianaiad]

How am I moving the goalposts? I was always talking about creationism as it is commonly defined (at least in the United States): God created the universe, the Earth and all life on it through supernatural power as opposed to natural mechanisms. In a more loose sense, yes, creationism can be defined solely as the idea that God created the Universe and nothing more than that. If you go by that, then evolution and abiogenesis are compatible with that definition of creationism.

hmmph.

I'm beginning to think that 'supernatural power' is synonymous for 'we don't understand it." As soon as science is able to get a handle on a process, and describe it in terms of predictability, it suddenly becomes 'natural' and thus 'God had nothing to do with it."

I've never been able to figure that one out, actually. I mean...think about it. If one is a theist (even a deist) one figures that God created everything...including the natural laws that govern the things we can see, describe and predict. Since God did the creating, anything He did WOULD be 'natural mechanisms,' wouldn't it? They would have to fit in there somewhere, even if their sudden appearance changes what everybody thought the 'natural mechanisms' were before that event. We would simply have to fold the new thing into our understanding, rather like fish in an aquarium having to include that brand new silly looking figure in the diving suit shooting bubbles into their world view.

Science isn't about declaring what 'natural mechanisms' must be. It's about describing what IS. If God created everything, then whatever He does with and in it is what 'is.' When we can describe 'what is,' it does not mean that suddenly God didn't do it. It just means that we can begin to understand the process.

That's the problem literal creationists and atheistic scientists have in common. Both sides figure that their beliefs define God...either what He should do or what he couldn't have done. In fact, I'm beginning to believe that atheists (not all, but a majority of the ones I talk to) are more superstitious than theists. THESE atheists figure that God, in order to BE God, has to be utterly impossible to envision, completely unpredictable, utterly unknowable and absolutely incomprehensible; He can't be God unless He deliberately wrests the 'laws of nature' (that He, in fact, is supposed to have created) in order to do anything at all.

On the other hand, literal creationists have decided pretty much the same thing. The only difference between them is that these non-believers figure that their ability to understand and track 'natural processes' proves that the God they insist upon doesn't exist (and therefore none can) and the literal creationists figure that He does exist precisely as those non-believers claim, and so throw the rascally scientists out.

A pox on both their houses.