Scientific American's 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense?

Question

What do you think of this article?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

Answer 1

it doesn't matter how many times you prove creationism to be false and impractical, the theists have to hold on to it other wise the entire act of atonement is negated, for why would Jesus have died for the sins of man, in line with the Prophesies, if Adam never existed. have you seen some of the garbage that is on the net, which gives explanations for dinosaurs, the best one I heard was that dinosaurs bones were left in the ground by God as a test of our faith!!! can you believe the lengths theist go too, to try and explain this bronze age philosophy to the modern child.

ha ha ha ha lol

Answer 2

I got tired of reading the same failed arguments, many of them knocking down strawmen, years ago. But I'll have a read, since you ask me to. 1. "Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however." The point is the the people making the statement ARE using the term that way, and the statement is still true. "All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance ... The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. " Here the writer makes his massive blunder. Yes, it DOES make it less certain. That's why the Standard Model of Physics isn't treated as certain, and different theories exist. Decent scientists don't have a problem with that. The problem is that even though evolution is at least as uncertain, many scientists have so much more difficulty accepting the uncertainty of it. (As the writer ably demonstrates in No.7 when he writes, "evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies", apparently discounting the possibility that any other theory can explain the same data.) 2 is an argument I've never heard used. 8. "Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance." "Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones." This argument knocks down a strawman. The arguments I have heard made are primarily regarding the improbability of abiogenesis without a creator (on which natural selection can say little), and on the probability of the arisal of desirable features in the first place, which the writer does not address. His analogy is one in which a certain trait has a 1 in 26 chance of being selected as 'desirable', and the whole combination survives with or without 'desirable' features. A gene on the other hand will often consist of hundreds or thousands of base pairs, many of them vital, and until ALL of the vital ones are correct (if there are only 30 vital ones, though there would probably be more, the chance is 1 in 4^30, or 1 in 1152921504606846976), there will be nothing particularly 'desirable' about it. 10. "Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features." As a counter-claim to this, he cites antannaepedia, which grows legs on it's head. This only backs up the claim that a mutation has not produced anything new - the creature already had legs, so there isn't anything new and complex here. Those are the more interesting ones. There's a lot of arguments there that are only put in for people who don't know as much about science. (I mean, if I was talking to a crowd of average people, do you think I'd use the argument from no. 8? If you take a representative sample of the population, most people don't understand percentages, let alone probability theory and exponents. No, I'd stick to the simpler arguments, even if I knew they weren't entirely watertight.) And then there's the ones where he cites vague evidence as demonstration that this is fact. I must find out what the name is for that logical fallacy, it's easily the one most often applied by evolutionists. After reading through it, I get the feeling I have read it before. But it wasn't really worth it the first time. You can see how interested he is in looking at evidence and argument and discerning the truth, just by reading the title - one case in which you CAN judge a book by its cover.

Answer 3

As a creationist I rather liked it, even though I do not believe in evolution. Some of his points are basically saying "we're still trying to figure that out, but we're getting there. We've got some answers to refute creationists, and we'll have more soon." I think that both sides need to truly listen to what the other is saying, and find a way to pull their ideas together. He is completely wrong in saying that creationists add nothing. All of the scientists today stand on the shoulders of the great scientists who came before them, many of whom definitely believed in a God and saw His handiwork and design in what they discovered. Did you notice the questions he asked regarding the intervention of intelligent design? They refuse to believe in the Biblical story of Creation which can actually provide answers and help make sense of what they ponder. They are also guilty of turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to that which does not fit their agenda. For example: they choose to ignore findings that show dinosaurs (which is actually a relatively new word to our language) and "modern" man did live together. The scripture says they did, and recent fossil evidence has uncovered it. One of the greatest minds of all time, Albert Einstein, said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." I think I can agree.

Answer 4

I think it's very disappointing that such articles need to be written. Over and over and over again.

I think the word "nonsense" in the title might show that the scientific community is finally beginning to run out of patience, and I'm rather impressed that it's taken them so long.

Answer 5

As a Christian that believes that evolution and creationism are linked I find it rather bland. The word use in Genesis for "day" can actually mean "a period of time". Well how long is a period of time? One second or three eons? Also in Genesis it says God took clay and made Adam by breathing life into him. So....he arose from the primordial ooze in other words.

Anyone that thinks science and God don't mix doesn't know God very well in my opinion.

Answer 6

You say our Bible was written by man, so you won't believe it, yet this article, and science books are written by men, and you believe them. Isn't that warped thinking? Why would you believe one thing written by man, and not another? There is no Proof in any of this article. You haven't convinced us of anything at all. You think we haven't heard all this before? You think this is something new, and you just won the battle? Don't pat yourself on the back just yet. (BTW--God is the author of the Bible--men were just the tools He used)
You can call it nonsense if you like. You will never convince me of it. Keep trying to convince yourselves, though. Not even a good try. God have mercy on you.

Answer 7

IMHO, I don't care about all of the articles presenting facts. You have pro science people claiming to disprove Creationism, and Creationists claiming to disprove evolution. To me, I don't really care how God created the universe, science doesn't disprove God to me like it seems to do to everyone else. That is called faith, I love God even though I have no proof of him, and that is what He wants us to do, CHOOSE for ourselves to love him because of all that He gives us. I choose to love Him because following God and Christ makes my life peaceful and wonderful, and no amount of science would ever destroy my faith in God. Scientists are just human, and science is applying human reason and logic to explain how the world and universe works. God gave us intelligence, so I don't think that science in and of itself is wrong, but it is up to us to use the information we find in a responsible way.

Answer 8

you seem to agree to it,of course it is a good article for us to chew.If everyone could get together and sign off on an agreement of where we came from,well we would be in a good world ,it will happen,i have my own discovery and i am teaching the people around me,no one can dispute it.I do not believe in everything i see or read,i chew it first and compare it to my foundation and then i find the answers,good process and it works for me.

Answer 9

Very good, but the creationists won't listen because it would require looking at a different point of view and actually trying to understand. Something I've seem them actively trying to avoid.

Answer 10

Considering the source, of course it will lift up science, and actually it degrades and disrespects creationists by the term nonsense. What else can one expect from a magazine like that?