Is it possible to defend Creationism without making the following errors?

Question

Having spent a fair bit of time reading the various evolution/creationism questions and answers I see that, for the most part, the people on the pro-evolution side understand what the theory means and explain it fairly well.

But there are common mistakes, logical errors, and misstatements made all the time by creationists to defend their view of things. While some of these might be considered judgement calls, the ones below are not. Yet they recur at such a dramatic rate that I wonder about the cognitive skills of the people who perpetuate them. A few examples of errors made in defending creationism.

1. "Evolution is just a theory." How many times do people have to be told that a "theory" is not the same as a "scientific theory?" They are not the same words. So basing any arguments on what "theory" means outside of science proves nothing more than a lack of understanding.

to be continued...

2. "There are no facts to back it up." This one is particularly frustrating, because only one fact needs to be presented to demonstrate the contrary. Does anyone deny we have DNA, and and that we have witnessed genetic mutation being passed on through sexual reproduction? This highschool level information is not in doubt. While it alone doesn't prove that evolution is legitimate, it does disprove the "no facts" argument.

3. Misrepresentation of the theory. It's common for people to start with, "As I understand it..." and then go on to claim evolution is something it is not. And then show why their imaginary hypothesis couldn't be true. Evolution doesn't claim we came from monkeys, for example. But you wouldn't know that from much of the stuff you read here on the creationist side.

...

4. "Creationism is true because it says so in the bible." Another frustrating one. If you're going to make a claim about something scientific then your hypothesis has to be subject to the same scrutiny as the science you're trying to debunk. Biblical inerrancy is to large a subject to into here, but it's simply illogical to attempt to replace a tested scientific theory with one that includes supernatural claims, an ark large enough to hold 2 of every animal, a global flood we have no evidence for, and rabbits with cloven feet. Surely, unless there is some general consensus (like the one about evolution that exists in the scientific community) that the bible is true, and this can be test independantly, using it to show evolution is false is simply arguing from a very weak premise?

The list goes on and on. It's far from complete.

You'll often see one pro-evolution person correcting another's error. I've yet to see a creationist point out to another the difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

...sorry to keep adding details. The very first answer here misstates evolution.

"and why didn't apes die out because of what came next, as per Darwinism and the whole " survival of the fittest " concept..."

Nobody is saying that this is true, except for creationists who don't understand what it is they're fighting against.

To Anne:

Thank you for a reasoned response. While it's true that some atheists try to use evolution as some kind of proof of god's non-existence, this is as weak an argument as the ones I listed above. I'm an atheist, but I would never make any claims about god's existence based on evolutionary facts.

And as far as the flood - I don't know what evidence you're referring to, but I'd love to read it. Could you email me a link?

Answer 1

You are of course correct and we will never be able to convince creationists otherwise. They have blind faith and to try to explain creation is pointless you just have to accept it as being true and not question it. Creation is not science and cannot be put to the same scrutiny of science. Religion and Science should really remain separate and science would be fine with that, but the religious cannot leave it alone. If someone chooses to be ignorant of science that is their choice, but it should be everyones else's choice not to believe something just because someone tries to push it without proof.

Answer 2

I believe it is, but you are going to have to go to places like http://www.trueorigin.org and http://apologeticspress.org and http://www.answersingenesis.org and not Yahoo Answers.

You asked for links on Flood evidence (there are many, but this should get you going):
http://biblicalgeology.net
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

There are plenty of logical errors made by the evolutionists on here as well (here are some that I see a lot):
http://www.train2equip.com/20LogicErrors.asp

Here is something Jim McGuiggan said that I thought was interesting: "Ask a child (or a husband or a father or a friend) to 'prove' the beloved really loves them and it isn't possible. Even if it could be 'proved', the child may not be able to make the case well enough to convince the critic. In this case it would be the child's inability that would be the problem and not that the claim couldn't be 'proved.' The trouble with critics is that often they can't tell the difference between someone being unable to prove it and the 'prove-ability' of the claim. In addition, more often than not they don't know what kind of 'proof' is required in the various disciplines. How do you 'prove' that Shakespeare is a better writer than Jackie Collins? How do you prove that Beethoven was a greater music-maker than someone who bangs out a four-chord song?"

Answer 3

There are misrepresentations on both sides. How many evolutionists have actually taken time to read Darwin's works (many of his theories have in actual fact been disproved)? I believe that a sovereign God created the universe. I don't pretend to understand how He did it. But I'm an intelligent, thinking, educated, non-brain washed individual. I haven't studied all the evolutionary theory enough to tell you what is true and what isn't. I think many things that science has shown (fossil record, DNA, etc) only serves to show how awesome our God is in how He crafted our world and us. Just because you can prove that one type of creature possibly evolved into another type does not take away the force behind it all...God, not random chance. Atheists try to stand behind evolution as proving there is no God. It does not prove that at all. Many of the worlds foremost scientists have been Christians and believers in God. Religion is not blind faith despite the facts. Its believing that there is something larger behind the facts. And, by the way, there is widespread evidence of global flood. You can see it in historical literature (other than the Bible for those that don't accept it as truth) as well as the fossil record.

Other proof of flood: Epic of Gilgamesh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

I know there are other documents as well, but I'm afraid this is the only one I studied extensively enough to remember the name of.

Answer 4

You are right, of course, on every point. But, what can we do about it? Not much. At least not until people recognize that religious indoctrination is probably a form of child abuse where the child is forced to believe what the parents believe while they are too young and vulnerable to form their own thoughts.

I'm going to start telling the young earth creationists and the "intelligent design" people that they should probably reconcile their huge differences between god created everything 6000 years ago and god created everything in a big bang 13 billion years ago. That difference is considerably greater than the nit-picking they can do in the Theory of Evolution.

Answer 5

The divine creation of man revolves around the idea that God ( or whatever diety you believe in ) created life, the universe, and all that.

Well, a divine being that's beyond human comprehension cannot be explained in human logic, so naturally science and religion are gonna be stalemated in a debate.

Even if you find something to say, such as if we evolved from apes, where's all the middle steps, and why didn't apes die out because of what came next, as per Darwinism and the whole " survival of the fittest " concept, they'll just so happen to have an excuse for it.

IMO, it can't be done. You won't convince people who don't believe, nor will they disprove it to any who do.

Answer 6

They compare us to apes and that is where the creationists get angry. The fact is evolution is a tree with species that are alive today developing on their own branch. If they are alive today then they are at the top of the evolutionary scale of their own species. Some were at the top millions of years ago and have not changed. Humans and apes are on the same tree just different branches.

Answer 7

For 3, you mean that some creationists misrepresent the theory of evolution? Just like you're misrepresenting creationism? Interesting.

Answer 8

to the question as posted - YES
as to the rest of your post the same thing happens in every category on YA. generally both sides of any question/statement fail to accurately state their point they use half-truths and mis-information. i find numerous links offered as evidence that don't even help the cause of those who offered the link, it is obvious that many don't actually read they instead assume. as long as discussions such as religion, politics, social science are discussed in this format we will continue to see a lot of misinformation and name calling rather then intelligent debate.

Answer 9

Believe it or not, I know for a fact we humans, and all living beings are created. We were created by heat, light, electro-magnetism, chemicals, and time. There may be other elements involved that are yet unknown. Oh yea, this fact also goes for all inanimate objects as well.

Answer 10

Sounds like an athiest and a fundamentalist debating evolution. Its pretty hard to see eye to eye when one side has their eyes closed to science and the other side has their eyes closed to God.