On Creationism

It is a fact that the vast majority of scientists accept evolution, and in particular virtually all biologists - the people most familiar with the evidence - do. As Project Steve shows, the number of biologists who accept evolution out-numbers those who do not by a factor of well over a hundred (see here and here ). The way creationists typically rationalise this is with a conspiracy - though not necessarily in so many words. A global cabal of scientists actively seeking to undermine Christianity. Cornelius Hunter ...the strength of the evolutionary argument is not in its driving up the probability of evolution, but in its driving down the probability of creation or design. http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/arguing-with-evolutionists-or-how-i.html Jonathan Wells Science follows the evidence wherever it leads, but Darwinism does not. So the present controversy over evolution is not a war between science and religion. It is primarily a war between Darwinism and ev...

Something I find fascinating about Christuanity is how it rationalises an all-loving, all-good God setting up a system that results in most people ending up in eternal suffering. I am, of course, talking about hell. Let me first make it clear that plenty of Christians already understand that the idea of eternal suffering is not compatible with an all-loving God. See for example: http://www.godsplanforall.com/jesusdidnotteachhell http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2006/03/There-Is-No-Hell.aspx http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html Unfortunately, many Christians readily embrace the concept of hell. Hell has two great appeals for religious leaders. Firstly, it means that those who scorn Christianity will suffer eternal torturing. What could be more satisfying to a God-fearing Christian than to know that his enemies will literally burn in hell! Oh, wait, if they are true Christians then they should love their enemies, and the thought of them going to hell would f...

A few more issues about the claims of a global flood... More Provisions Noah's troubles are not over once the ark has hit land. He cannot just let his lions go off and find food straightaway. The first prey they bring down will be one species extinct. And lions kill about five times a week, I think. Noah will have to keep feeding the carnivores until the prey species have got sufficiently established that they can (as a species) survive being hunted. How long will that take for zebras, for example? I would guess decades. A Change of Heart for the Eternal Unchanging... God apparently lives outside of time, is eternal and unchanging. So it is rather amusing to read that after the flood he changes his attitude. 21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. ...

Numbers on the Ark So how many animals were on the ark? Answers vary, this site says 145,400. This would mean packing the animals in like battery chickens. Each human would have to look after 18,000 animals each. Say a cage needs mucking out once a week, he will be mucking out 2600 cages a day, or 2.7 cages every minute (leaving him six hours a day to sleep, eat, feed all the other thousands of animals he is responsible for). At the other end of the scale (I have not researched this fully; there may well be higher or lower estimates out there), we have 16,000 animals ( here ). In this scenario, the humans have a leisurely 12 to 13 minutes to muck out each cage... For 16 hours a day, for a year. Who was it getting punished again? Here is a page where AiG list all the supposed "kinds" of mammals. It is not a bad article in general, although it does say: Wilson and Reeder (2005) place the great apes in Hominidae with humans, but given the significant differences betwee...

Many creationist believe in a flood that covered the entire world, something like 4500 years ago, based on a literal interpration of the Bible and this serves to illustrate how far creationist will ignore evidence - and indeed common sense - when it happens to conflict with their personal beliefs. A great illustration of this thinking comes from Answers in Genesis : First, we know God’s Word is true and there was a global Flood. Knowing the Flood happened, and in light of the fact that we have plants today, the important question is: in what ways did the plants and seeds survive the Flood? The logical argument for the fact that plants survived the Flood is actually quite simple.     The Bible states there was a worldwide Flood.     We see plants today.     Therefore plants survived the Flood. It does not matter what logic, evidence or common sense say, to them it is a fundamental truth that a worldwide Flood happened. If logic sa...

The story of Adam and Eve is fascinating. It is fundamental to creationism, and in some sense to Christianity itself, as the Fall was the incident that necessitated Jesus. Let us have a look at this story... Life and breath 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. I have asked Christians several times when a baby receives a soul and have yet to receive a firm reply from anyone. I realised recently that the answer is here. It is clear from this verse that having a soul is associated with breath. God breathes, man has a soul. The implication is that a baby has a soul the moment she draws her first breath. Most Christians will not like that answer, now that we have ultrasound scans and can see the baby in the womb, and those who enjoy bombing abortion clinics will be particularly upset by it; if they can find Biblical support for their position, I am happy to listen. Those two trees 9...

A common tactic for ceationist is to link Darwin to racism, slavery and hitler. It is a bizarre idea because well, what are we supposed to think? Darwin was a racist, therefore his ideas must necessarily be wrong? How does that work? Or are they saying we should pretend Darwinism is wrong? You know, like they do. It just makes no sense. Virtually all biologists today accep the theory of evolution because of the overwhelming evidence and the opinions of he originator of the theory are irrelevant. But what makes this tactic so odious is that the links to Christianity are far stronger. This is part four in a series of four posts. Darwin and Hitler Whole books have been written that pretend to a strong, direct link from Darwin's theory to Hitler's holocaust, such as From Darwin to Hitler: evolutionary ethics, eugenics, and racism in Germany by Richard Weikart, and there is even a movie that tries to make the case, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed . Perhaps there are oth...

A common tactic for ceationist is to link Darwin to racism, slavery and hitler. It is a bizarre idea because well, what are we supposed to think? Darwin was a racist, therefore his ideas must necessarily be wrong? How does that work? Or are they saying we should pretend Darwinism is wrong? You know, like they do. It just makes no sense. Virtually all biologists today accep the theory of evolution because of the overwhelming evidence and the opinions of he originator of the theory are irrelevant. But what makes this tactic so odious is that the links to Christianity are far stronger. This is part three in a series of four posts. Eugenics and Racial Purity Eugenics is animal husbandry applied to mankind. No more and no less than that. We know animal husbandry works, so it seems a safe bet that eugenics too will work, and it must be accepted that its objective, the improvement of the human race, is a noble one. Unfortunately that noble goal cannot be achieved in what we today consi...