In a monumentally stupid article today the daily telegraph seems to have lost their marbles over creationism. The subtitle of the piece is "The best arguments to support creation"; fantastic I thought, they must have marshalled their best researchers and scientists to the case to come up with some really difficult and challenging questions for us to ponder.
See for yourselves…
No evidence for evolution
There is no evidence that evolution has occurred because no transitional forms exist in fossils i.e. scientists cannot prove with fossils that fish evolved into amphibians or that amphibians evolved into reptiles, or that reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. Perhaps because of this a surprising number of contemporary scientists support the Creation theory.
Of course there is evidence, even in 1859 when Darwin first proposed Natural Selection there was mountains of evidence, fossil evidence alone is overwhelming and that isn't even the most important evidence; DNA records and the distribution of species each provide clear and unequivocal evidence of evolution, and in fact DNA alone is enough to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. This first point is so stupid it must be a mistake, surely the next 4 argument will be better, right?
History is too short
Creationists argue that if the world is as old as evolution claims it is there would be
-billions more stone age skeletons than have been found
-many more historical records like cave paintings than have been found
-a lot more sodium chloride in the sea
-a lot more sea-floor sediment
OK so the second best argument is that the Earth is only 6000 years old, I know jokes older than that, there are trees that are older than that, we see billions of stars every night that are more than 6000 light years away, is the author of this piece a complete imbecile? Such an assertion would mean that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING we know about physics, biology, chemistry and geology is wrong, please tell me this is going to get better?
Compound Eye
The eye that enables some organisms to see in the dark is so complex that no proven theories for its evolutionary development have yet been put forth. As the CreationWiki puts it, the Compound Eye "has all of the hallmarks of intelligent design and defies attempts to explain it through natural mechanisms".
This is just bizarre, why pick out one seemingly random organ out of the many to choose from? Biologists know how the compound eye develops, we know many of the molecules involved and there are no miracles required. Its proteins and small diffusible molecules interacting to negotiate the construction of a repeating pattern of simple optical elements, surely this can't get any worse, oh wait…
Allegory
The Bible uses allegory to explain the creation of the earth. It is a story, so employs figures of speech and other literary devices to tell the story of how God created man e.g. Genesis "days" could also be read as "ages".
This is an argument against creation for God's sake! He is saying that the Bible is just a fairy tale and don't take it too seriously, please tell me that there is at least one shred of intelligent thought in here, somewhere, anywhere?
For what purpose is all of this?
Evolutionists have never offered a satisfactory explanation.
Well, looks like there wasn't any intelligent thought going on after all; why does there have to be a "why", why does Ayres rock exist, why does a coin you flip land on heads instead of tails, rejecting a mountain of evidence because it doesn't satisfy childish wish thinking is a pathetic non-argument, how disappointing.
If this is the best creationists can come up with then I think Dawkins will be sleeping like a baby tonight.
2 comments:
If creationists are to be believed, the world was created 1000 years after the sumerians had learned to brew beer.
What a pile of pants from the Telegraph. They don't seem to know the difference between Creationism and believing that God created the world - not the same. Most non-creationist theists would have probably started with the 'fine tuning' stuff in physics and cosmology. As usual we have to go to the blogs and not the mainstream meadia for intelligent comment.
I quite like the idea of Sumerian beer being the raw material from which everything else was made.
Post a Comment