Troy Lacey, a writer for Answers in Genesis, recently wrote an article titled Answering Atheists. Lame from start to finish, Lacey tries to deconstruct quotes from Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Richard Dawkins. (These men, by the way, are not top-shelf atheists. Lacey might want to engage atheists who are schooled in Christian theology and dogma.)
With the Bible as our starting point, we can look at the natural laws that God created, such as laws of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis, and we can examine whether natural selection and mutation could possibly account for molecules-to-man evolution. They can’t. Instead, they clearly show the Creator (Romans 1:18–20).
Far from refusing to look at any evidence, creationists carefully examine it all. Creationist articles, books, and museums regularly cite the specific evolutionary arguments and then test them using the most rigorous scientific and philosophical tools available. We desperately want to know the truth so we can speak accurately about the Creator and his handiwork. We have no fears where the evidence will lead because we know it all points to God’s glory.
Oh, the lies young earth creationists tell. Do creationists really “carefully examine it [evidence] all?” Do they “desperately want to know the truth?” Of course not. Most young earth creationists are presuppositionalists. Creationists don’t start with evidence, they start with the following presuppositions:
- The Protestant Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God
- The one True God is the triune God of the Bible
- God created the earth in six literal twenty-four-hour days, 6,028 years ago
- God destroyed the human race, save eight people, with a worldwide flood
I could add more Evangelical presuppositions, but these will suffice for now. Instead of weighing the evidence for these claims, they presuppose that they are true. Granted, none of us is free of presuppositions, We should do everything we can to limit our presuppositions. Evangelicals, on the other hand, have presuppositions upon presuppositions. These presuppositions keep them from seeing, knowing, and understanding the truth. And it is for this reason that it is nearly impossible to argue/debate Evangelical apologists. Presuppositions are faith claims that are impervious to falsification. Either you believe them to be true, or you don’t.
Lacey lives in a bubble where he genuinely believes that creationists are “using the most rigorous scientific and philosophical tools available.” He says that creationists do not “fear where the evidence will lead.” Why? Here comes another presupposition: we know it all [all evidence] points to God’s glory. Does all evidence point to God’s glory? Of course not. This is a faith claim.
Long before we can discuss “creationism,” we must first debate the claims Evangelicals make for the existence of God and the supernatural nature of the Bible. Lacey wants atheists to take his word for these claims. Not going to happen. Most atheists are rationalists and skeptics. We expect Evangelical apologists to provide some sort of evidence for their claims. Lacey claims Evangelicals like him examine and test every claim made by scientists. Is this a true claim? If yes, then why are so few creationist scientists published in scientific journals; not creationist or Evangelical journals, but well-respected science journals? Cue claims of persecution or bias. That’s how Evangelicals explain their overwhelming lack of publication in non-sectarian science journals. “The evil evolutionists are out to get us,” Evangelicals claim. However, the more likely explanation is that their claims lack scientific standing, and no reputable journal is going to give space for nonsense to be published.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
Creationists suffer from the most basic of logical fallacies, the argument from incredulity. We are able to negotiate life by observing what we see in the world and then making judgements around those observations. If we are outside and we see black clouds we know it’s probably going to rain and we take cover, if we can. If we are driving and we see a car coming toward us on the wrong side of the road we take evasive action.
Science works in the same way, but the way in which we are forced to collate and then address the observations are much more complex. We observe that evolution has happened, but the observations were made before the theory was properly constructed (by theory I am referring to scientific theory, which begins with the fact of evolution and then seeks to explain it). Even if we didn’t have the fossil record the evidence for evolution is everywhere around us, from vestigial organs, to atavisms, to geographical biodiversity. Creationists either ignore this evidence or they make up stories to explain it away, based on the premise that they can’t accept that evolution must be true. We can’t actually see evolution happening because it takes place over such long periods of time, so creationists simply play games that says ‘but it couldn’t happen’. Trouble is, it did happen. That’s what our observations tell us, and from which the theory of evolution emanated.
If creationists have problems with evolution then they should start delving into quantum physics. Particles that can be in more than one place at the same time. A universe in which the observer is more important than the physical factors being observed. The fact that space and time are so intertwined that they amount to the same thing. Of course, I’m sure they’ll have their bible verses where they claim that exactly these points are addressed!
GeoffT made some excellent points. I remember being inside fundamentalist evangelicalism, specifically at a “Christ-centered” Christian school. I fear so much cognitive dissonance in science classes. We’d learn about the laws of thermodynamics, the formula for work, Mendel’s early study of genetics, etc, just like students in public school. But when we got into sections on geology or astronomy, things got murky. Instead of learning about the ages of rocks, we were told that “God made the earth and universe with the appearance of age, but he created everything 6,000-10,000 years ago.” We were told that carbon dating methods could not be trusted because the method was somehow contaminated. We were told that dinosaurs were killed in the global flood “Noah’s Flood” and couldn’t live in the post-flood environment because the resulting climate changed. We were taught that there was no rain before the flood – that there was some sort of “canopy effect” that created moist conditions like a greenhouse. I don’t know where they got that there was no rain before the flood, but that was what we were taught. Even as a teen, I was uncomfortable about the notion that we could trust almost all of science but not the part about evolution, the age of the universe, the fossil record. It was a conflict I couldn’t resolve. Simply being told that Satan was deceiving scientists didn’t cut it for me. As a teen,I started working in labs at a prestigious secular university, and some of the scientists were Christian (granted, liberals like Episcopalians and Methodists, but still). I felt uncomfortable that these scientists believed in evolution and the age of the earth. It didn’t makes sense to me that they were reading journals, making hypotheses, running experiments, repeating, and making conclusions every day and contributing to research on cancer, yet were deceived about this other science over there. Something didn’t add up. But we were taught in our religion that God and Satan were powerful, so I guess that was possible? I felt conflicted and ignorant because I didn’t know whether to trust my church and school – and God – or award-winning scientists, some of whom also followed the same God.
It’s no wonder fundamentalist Christians are so susceptible to pseudoscience and just outright lies. They’re taught to distrust anyone outside their religious bubble. They’re taught that scholars and experts might be deceived by Satan. They’re taught that they have a trusted Holy Spirit Guide living inside of them to point them in the correct direction. They’re taught that this spirit guide is God who is omnimax. Therefore, if Christian Jane or Christian Joe “feels convicted by the Holy Spirit” that they shouldn’t get their kids vaccinated for MMR because of microchips or autism or whatever, it’s very hard to combat that.
I do not care what young earth creationists “believe”. What worries me is when they are allowed to say this is science. It is not. All children should be taught in school what the scientific method is in language a child can understand. Then they should go on to take science classes about biology, chemistry, geology, and physics. If a school cannot allow a child to be taught about these subjects from a scientific point of view then the children should be sent to another school to learn about science.
Young earth creation should not be allowed in schools and if they try to use it the school should be shut down. As Obstaclechick said, this kind children are harmed for a long time and may never be able to differentiate between science and the fake nonsense taught by religions.
A child is a separate person and not the slave of either their parents or their church. They have a right to be educated so they can function in the modern world.
One thing I’ve always found interesting about Ken Ham’s “Answers in Genesis” is how they love to have it both ways. For example, they’ll cite “molecules-to-man evolution”, as something to be avoided in schools, yet the evolution part of it is a fact and to conflate that with abiogenesis (which is more speculative) which isn’t necessarily part of a study of evolution. Then of course Ham proposes that there is a lot of evolution in a very small time frame, since the Ark (tee hee) only had one canid couple (for example), so everything from hyena, foxes, and wolves, all speciated quickly from the canid prototype. This obfuscation is a very clever strawman. Not only that, evolution is “evilution” for the incurious rubes but evolution is acceptale in the more cerebral discussions allow evolution by Dr. Georgia Purdum and other PhD hired guns.
One more comment about PhD hired gun creationists (Danny Faulkner, Jason Lisle, etc.). I’ve alway found it more interesting where they went to church as a child and where they go to church now, rather than where they got their PhD. It is also telling that such PhDs typically drop out of the science community for which the currency is publishing papers from studies. The PhD is merely used as window dressing, though the scientist has long left the building.
Ah those presuppositions huh? They’ll lead you to rely on false premises every time. “With the Bible as our starting point,…” Ok Troy but the credibility, the inerrancy, the evidentiary value of the Bible, (your starting point) is premised on the magical notion of inspiration. If you start from a flawed premise, flawed conclusions are the inevitable outcome.
The illustration for this post made me realize something I couldn’t have understood many years ago, when I was watching The Flintstones: William Hanna and Joseph Barbera were inculcating kids with notions of Intelligent Design. Perhaps it wasn’t their intention, but their cartoon series illustrates the only possible outcome of ID: Humans and dinosaurs lived together.
Hmm…
I don’t think Nye, deGrasse Tyson or Dawkins ever presented themselves as knowledgeable about the Bible or theology. Rather, Nye’s agnosticism, de Grasse Tyson’s non-belief in a deity as traditionally conceptualized and Dawson’s atheism seem to be rooted mainly in the rigor of their scientific reasoning. Debating them with theology reminds me of something I told my students during a discussion on some issue–perhaps it was abortion–Faith and religion can’t answer questions that require reason and science, and vice-versa.
Troy–Mark Twain probably did the best debunking of the ark story. Check out his “Letters from the Earth.”