Creationists are destroying their own position.
In trying so stubbornly to refute the scientific theory of evolution, creationists aren’t actually helping their own cause.
First point, it makes them look like complete idiots. The arguments they make are often void of any scientific value, so by doing that they are exposing to the world how “scientific” they really are.
More importantly, they engender the spirit of skepticism which effectively would destroy their own position. For example, evolution is a theory of chance and magic. It’s a fairytale for grownups. By the way, there were two naked people in the garden and a talking snake.
But having on their side literally mountains of evidence, scientists can rationally refute these allegations, whilst creationists themselves can’t.
The creationist objective is not usually to prove itself correct, rather to piss on scientific research, producing very little evidence of their own, until science becomes seen as a religion, and religion becomes a science. Where “evidence” is produced by creationists, it is often laughable and shows further ignorance of scientific knowledge in general, which also works to destroy their credibility in any scientific field.
The first question I ever proposed to you on this blog was this: “Creationists, why are criticising the validity of science textbooks when your book practically begins with a talking snake?” My argument has not changed, nor has it so far been rebutted.
“The first question I ever proposed to you on this blog was this: “Creationists, why are criticising the validity of science textbooks when your book practically begins with a talking snake?” My argument has not changed, nor has it so far been rebutted.”
Not trying to offend, but I think you’re missing the point with your question. Creationists don’t question the validity of science textbooks; they question the validity of the theory being put forth in the textbook.
Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t begin with a talking snake. It begins with God, so if you allow that the possibility that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent Being (which is what the Bible makes God out to be), how can you say, “Well, this Being is all-powerful, but I can’t see how He could allow a snake to talk.” This is non-sensical; if God is all-powerful, it is in His power to do anything He wants. This shouldn’t be a huge problem for you; God could also have created evolution if He wanted to. So your argument doesn’t shoot down creationism, nor does a proper rebuttal shoot down your argument. I guess that means the best response to your question would be, “So what?”
“Where “evidence” is produced by creationists, it is often laughable and shows further ignorance of scientific knowledge in general, which also works to destroy their credibility in any scientific field.”
Just curious what “evidence” you are referencing here, and am I to assume that because you purport scientific credibility that you are a firm believer in methodological naturalism? If that’s the case, then I have a question/concern for you that I will bring up in the future.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, and for taking the time to read mine. Kind regards.
“Creationists don’t question the validity of science textbooks; they question the validity of the theory being put forth in the textbook.” This is quite nonsensical. For example, I don’t criticise the validity of the Bible, just the validity of the fairytales contained within it.
In case you missed the entire point of my argument (which you did), I can rephrase it for you. Creationists criticise a very sound scientific theory yet fail to address their own ridiculous hypothesis. This goes on to prove how much they actually care about science.
“Just curious what “evidence” you are referencing here” – Well, are you a creationist? If so, you would know exactly what sort of evidence I am talking about.
Quite to the contrary. Just because a creationist doesn’t believe in biological evolution doesn’t mean that the whole science textbook is discredited. I can very easily believe what my science textbook tells me about Newton’s laws of motion or how many planets are in the solar system, yet still disagree with the theory of evolution. Let’s call a spade a spade. This would be like agreeing with everything in the Bible except Revelation. It doesn’t discount the other books in the Bible, just the one in question.
As far as your “sound scientific theory” versus “ridiculous hypothesis” claim, I think maybe you ought to do a bit more research. Theists don’t use the Bible to prove God’s existence. That would be like accusing naturalists of using Origin of Species to prove evolution. That’s not how it works. Be fair to the opposition if you’re going to call them ridiculous.
And I’m not sure what evidence you are talking about, because you don’t seem aware of all of the evidence available for theists. So I would like to know where it starts and ends, yes.
No, I will not follow you into this argument about semantics because the way I see it, by discrediting the contents within the science textbook you are essentially making claims about the textbook’s validity, at least to certain degrees. Yes, I can see exactly where you are coming from but this is a problem of semantics — and granted you are correct it still does not change the core of my argument, at all.
Also, as far as science textbooks are concerned, of course they should always be questioned, and read with an open mind.
First you’re talking about creationists. Then you mention theists. Then you’re back to creationists, etc. Make up your mind then present your argument(s) again.
Or, if you for some reason wish to define “creationists” as “theists”, then let me know too. I am aware that the definition of creationism is also broad and rather flexible, but it is specifically the Bible literalists, YEC’s and/or evolution deniers to which I address here.
All I am trying to say is that if you were to have the same textbook, but remove evolution or even replace it with creationism, the rest of the information is still just as valid as if it is next to evolution. So we are talking specifically about the theory, not the book. What your question does is use one specific instance to discredit the whole book. That’s not a level playing field, my friend. If you want to say that a talking snake means we should discredit the creation account, go ahead. But don’t use it to refute the entire Bible, because that’s a disservice to your own argument.
Creationists are by definition theists; so the first line of defense is not to prove the creation account, it’s to prove the existence of God. Since you don’t believe God exists, I must first show you the evidence for theism before I can show you the evidence for creationism. And to prove theism the Bible is not used. So it makes no sense for creationists to come on here and try to give you a rebuttal, because we can’t discuss talking snakes until we’ve come to a common ground on the existence of God. Your argument is missing a premise; once you realize that it might become more reasonable.
Sure, I can grant you your premise, which is, God exists. Now, please provide some evidence for your creation account.
Do you actually believe that, or are you allowing the premise to continue the argument?
And if you grant my premise, would you also grant that God would have to be, by nature, the greatest possible being in existence?
Of course I don’t believe it.
I can grant you whatever you want.
If you grant all my premises, you realize you have to grant my conclusion, right?
No. That would be ridiculously non-sequitur. Tell me you’re not serious.
Sabepashubbo and Tim,
Late to the conversation, but this caught my attention:
Right. And such an entity is a ridiculous foundation for belief in anything. What you logically end up with having an omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent being is a deity that is malevolent or indifferent. Even if you believe in such a thing, why would you want to worship it?
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”