The arguments for biblical Creationism are
like the lyrics to familiar television jingles. Sure, Intelligent Design doesn't make a lot
of sense. But everybody knows the words, and sometimes it's fun to sing along.
So...The Thinking Atheist presents...Our Top Ten Favorite Creationist Arguments
1) Carbon Dating Isn’t Accurate To Determine the Age of the Earth. Perhaps that’s why
carbon dating isn't the preferred method for dating rocks and fossils over 50,000 years
old. There are a great many methods of radiometric dating that accurately measure the decay of
radioactive elements in rocks, meteorites and fossils, and that’s why science can
confidently estimate the age of planet earth at 4.5 billion years. 2) You can't prove Evolution. As opposed to
proving a Youth Earth theory from primitive, anonymous texts? Actually...man has unlocked
the world of genetics to reveal that all living things have and do evolve, and that similarities
exist between the DNA of plants, animals and humans alike. Evolution is observable, provable
science. To quote the famous evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould "Creationist critics
often charge that evolution cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be viewed as a properly
scientific subject at all. This claim is rhetorical nonsense.” -
3) If man evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? This is like asking, if
America was colonized by the English, why do we still have England? The "branching"
phenomenon in speciation doesn't make the original branch disappear. Next question,
please. 4) The human eye is too complex to have evolved.
This argument is also known as, "Irreducible Complexity." This gross over-simplification
ignores creatures like the single-celled Euglena (you-GLEEN_uh)...which have evolved antennae
for light. Mollusks and jellyfish have evolved varying grades of vision. Plus...consider
this: The human eye is more poorly constructed and much less acute than the eye of the octopus
or the great horned owl. The human eye has blind spots in the visual field. The human
retina is inverted, requiring the brain to "flip" the image to appear right-side-up.
Did God care more about the design of the horned owl than his own children? Complexity
does not demand a designer. 5) Atheism is actually a religion. Indeed.
Much like "not collecting stamps" might be called a hobby. Or “not smoking” might
be called a habit. 6) Oh yeah? Well "Scientist-X" believes in
God. That's nice. So did icons like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, who also lived in the
time of dirt floors, bleeding sick people to cure them, and burning witches at the stake.
Sir Isaac Newton was a believer and theologian. He was also an alchemist. Did Newton's groundbreaking
research on gravity and the Laws of Motion also prove his belief that metals had magical
powers and could be combined to make gold? Cherry-pick all you want. The fact is, 93%
of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject the concept of God . That's
not just a majority. It's an overwhelming majority. In fact, this is just a sampling
of the reputable scientific organizations that reject Intelligent Design and support
Evolution by Natural Selection. 7) You're saying that everything happened
by "chance?" No. Chance certainly plays a part in the evolutionary cycle, but Natural
Selection promotes non-random change of specific desirable traits over time. Living organisms
didn't just pop into existence by "chance." But they did evolve over millions, sometimes
billions, of years. 8) America is a Christian nation. Actually,
the U.S. Constitution never mentions God. And the mentions of religion in Article 6
and the First Amendment serve to separate religion from government altogether. “In
God We Trust” wasn’t printed on American coins until 1863, after a religious surge
during the Civil War. American paper money didn’t have it until 1957. The words “under
God” weren’t even in the original Pledge of Allegiance. They were added by Congress
in 1954. And many of our founding fathers never proclaimed any allegiance or belief
in the Christian God… including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams,
Thomas Paine, and even George Washington. 9) The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics! We love
this argument, because almost everyone who uses it has no idea what they're talking about.
In a nutshell, The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered
over time, so complex living cells and organisms couldn't have come out of basic inanimate
chemicals. In other words, more time means more chaos. What Creationists fail to mention
is that this "law" only works in a closed system, where no energy or matter leaves or
enters. The earth is not a closed system. It receives heat and light from our sun's
nuclear fusion, fueling simple organisms so that they can become more complex by consuming
other forms of life and nonliving materials. Here's an easy way to frustrate this argument.
When a Christian brings up with 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ask him what the other "laws"
are. When he shrugs and stares into space, you’ll know how truly informed he is on
the subject. 10) And finally...Our favorite. Adolf Hitler
was an atheist. Actually...Hitler was raised Roman Catholic. In "Mein Kampf," Hitler speaks
of the "creator of the universe" and says the Aryan race was created by God. His religious
views (or lack of them) remain in dispute, but using the name of history's greatest tyrant
isn't an argument. It's a provocation that has NOTHING to do with the concept of Evolution
or Creation. Invoking Hitler is a "hot button" designed to distract people from the true
argument...the overwhelming evidence of Evolution By Natural Selection.
There they are. Our Top Ten Favorite Creationists Arguments.
Next time you come up against one of these, just remember that your worldview is based
on evidence. Their worldview includes an invisible divine "Daddy", 2 naked people and a talking
snake, contradictory documents written in the Bronze Age, the wearing of torture devices
around one's neck, and bumper stickers that say "Seven Days Without Prayer Makes One Weak."
For the record...we're not sure the Creationist argument could be much weaker.
We're just sayin'.
This is outstanding. Well done The Thinking Atheist!
It's weird seeing a video with high production values that is completely pro-atheist. It's normally just somebody with a webcam laying down the law guerilla style. Hopefully soon the ghost "documentaries" on the History channel will be replaced by high quality atheistic programming.
I did enjoy this. Though I have to ask, is the production team at Mythbusters hiring out now?
Well thought out, but perhaps a little too brief. The style seems to be a little too "hurr hurr Creationists are dumb" for my liking, I can't help but feel that it's antagonistic enough that any real Creationist would just ignore it, and that it's only really aimed at those who already agree with them.
Yeah, it's useful to have the answers in one place, but I think they could have been a little more civil about it. You'll catch more flies with honey, and all that...
Edit: Guess I should specify that, while I understand that it's aimed at people who want to refute creationist arguments, there's still no need not to be civil about it. Creationism is born of ignorance, and as long as intellectuals look down on them and laugh, they're not likely to take anything intellectuals say seriously. I just think it's a bit crass - we have science and logic on our side, being rude or disparaging can only serve to hurt our argument and distract from it.
TheThinkingAtheist: isn't "Thinking" a little bit redundant? ;)
Amazing :-)
I am as sick of hearing these responses as I am the charges. I just plain don't like living in a world where this is still being debated.
I was hoping for something more along the lines of being able to show it to a creationist. It's a good video, it's just preaching to the choir.
I wish they elaborated on the monkey/man thing. Humans are a different strain of monkey, as are orangutans and gorillas, and we all evolved from a common ancestor that does not exist today. The America/England metaphor does not convey this.