Creationist deadheads
Thought for the day: how the hell do creationists keep their beliefs?
I mean really. "Creation science" is not just a joke but a contradiction in terms - science consists of formulating and testing hypotheses in order to come up with one or more possible conclusions, whilst creationism starts with a conclusion, uses the conclusion as a hypothesis, and searches for holes in other arguments. "Intelligent Design" is, generally speaking, creationism in a different guise, and has just the same problems. In fact, it is if anything less believable, since it (officially) has no (supposedly) God-given authority to back it up; how does a non-scientific movement like ID expect to prosper without the endorsement of half-crazed fundamentalist loons?
"Were you there? Were you there? Were you there?" is an oft quoted piece of verbal diarrhoea. A parallel to this that I have seen noted would be the robbing of one's house. You weren't there. Nor were the police. Yet even in the absence of witnesses we are able to use "indirect evidence" - the term thrown at insubstantial and doubtless totally fallible things such as the fossil record, geological evidence, and arcaeological findings which go against creationism - to convict the perp. A creationist abhors carbon-dating and such lies, but loves fingerprints.
I will stop here - I could go on making points till judgement day (grief, not that too) simply because I cannot be bothered to expend effort on refuting, as countless others have already done, creationist bullshit. It is wearing and it depresses me that human beings, members of the one known intelligent species, can nevertheless be so mind-bogglingly stupid and self-delusional. Hopefully, my next entry will be on a lighter note.
The very best, C.E.M.
I mean really. "Creation science" is not just a joke but a contradiction in terms - science consists of formulating and testing hypotheses in order to come up with one or more possible conclusions, whilst creationism starts with a conclusion, uses the conclusion as a hypothesis, and searches for holes in other arguments. "Intelligent Design" is, generally speaking, creationism in a different guise, and has just the same problems. In fact, it is if anything less believable, since it (officially) has no (supposedly) God-given authority to back it up; how does a non-scientific movement like ID expect to prosper without the endorsement of half-crazed fundamentalist loons?
"Were you there? Were you there? Were you there?" is an oft quoted piece of verbal diarrhoea. A parallel to this that I have seen noted would be the robbing of one's house. You weren't there. Nor were the police. Yet even in the absence of witnesses we are able to use "indirect evidence" - the term thrown at insubstantial and doubtless totally fallible things such as the fossil record, geological evidence, and arcaeological findings which go against creationism - to convict the perp. A creationist abhors carbon-dating and such lies, but loves fingerprints.
I will stop here - I could go on making points till judgement day (grief, not that too) simply because I cannot be bothered to expend effort on refuting, as countless others have already done, creationist bullshit. It is wearing and it depresses me that human beings, members of the one known intelligent species, can nevertheless be so mind-bogglingly stupid and self-delusional. Hopefully, my next entry will be on a lighter note.
The very best, C.E.M.
posted by Canis Ex Machina at 9:45 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home