Reactions to a Creationist “Argument”

Did any of you guys enjoy watching Cosmos? You should have because it was awesome.

When it comes to science it’s inevitable that a bunch of crazy people are going disagree with anything that suggests the bible isn’t to be taken literally.

As I’ve said many times before, I’m against ridiculing people who choose to adopt certain aspects of religious philosophy. I don’t consider the people who take religious stories literally to be truly religious. They’re arrogant, ignorant, brainwashed, and deluded, but they’re certainly not religious. You can’t follow a philosophy unless you have a true understanding of it, and if you obstinately deny logical arguments backed by evidence you can’t say you understand anything.

That said I’m here today to take a look at a creationist argument and scream “WHAT THE FUCK” at the top of my lungs, so this should be fun for everyone.

I recently stumbled across an article by creationist Ken Ham in which he condemns Cosmos as a series that isn’t scientific and was merely a means to preach evolution.

This is par for the course though, right? I mean what can he really say that we haven’t seen a thousand times before?

“much of the supposed evolutionary history that Tyson presents, such as the alleged evolution of the eye, is pure speculation—it can’t be observed or repeated.”

 

…. Ummmmmm

 

Tyson confuses observational science with historical science in Cosmos. You see, he wants viewers to accept on blind faith that molecules-to-man evolution is fact, when it has never been observed.

 

This… this is a joke right? I mean…. You can’t be serious.

You guys see that, right? Is my brain just playing a trick on me? “Blind faith” “Never been observed” Dude, the fuck are you saying?

Is he seriously using arguments made against religion to try and discredit science? How can you legitimately use that argument? At the very least try to save face by saying “see? All sides have a degree of blind faith to them.” That would still be wrong, but you’d at least look like less of an idiot.

Here’s the thing, evolution has tons of physical evidence. Fossil records, vestigial organs, animal families. I suppose, no, you can’t sit and observe evolution happen before your eyes, but that’s like saying gravity doesn’t exist because you can’t see it pull us to the ground.

Maybe his goal is to try and have atheists defend that things that can’t be observed can still exist. Well, they’ve been saying that forever, but that still doesn’t point a favor towards the existence of a deity. While scientific concepts we can’t observe have evidence supporting their existence, supernaturalism does not.

Furthermore, scientists admit that they do not fully understand everything gathered from evidence and thus the current theories on these principles are subject to change based on what we continue to learn. That said, evolution is fact at this point. What we continue to learn about it only changes certain details; it will never be so fundamentally altered that it can be disproven.

Ham then goes on to draw a very… strange conclusion

But what I found really significant about Cosmos was how Tyson compared believing in an evolutionary origin to having a spiritual experience. Sadly, Tyson is worshipping and serving “the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25) by the way he exalts the religion of evolution and millions of years. Now, Dr. Mitchell pointed out in her presentation to our staff that Tyson was very condescending toward Bible-believing Christians. But at one point, he actually shares his own brand of spirituality:

“A central premise of traditional belief is that we were created separately from all the other animals. It’s easy to see why this idea has taken hold. It makes us feel special. But what about our kinship with the tree? How does that make you feel? . . . Some claim that evolution is just a theory as if it were just an opinion. The theory of evolution like the theory of gravity is a scientific fact. Evolution really happened. Accepting our kinship with all life on earth is not only solid science; it’s, in my view, also a soaring spiritual experience.”

Of course, I’ve been saying throughout my entire 30+ years of ministry that evolution is a religion—and now Tyson has confirmed that! Evolutionists really are teaching people to worship the creation and not the Creator.

 

How on earth did you conclude that Tyson “worships” evolution from that quote? Having a “spiritual experience” is way way waaaaaaaaay different from worshiping something. Going to an Indian Sweat Lodge is a spiritual experience- no one is calling it a religion.

What I think Tyson is celebrating here (I can’t speak for him) is the way life on Earth shares a connection and how nature has an incredible way of adapting to new circumstances. Realizing and thinking about that may (he says “in my view;” he acknowledges it won’t be so incredible to everyone) can change your perspective of the world and is, in that sense, “spiritual.” He is not building an entire philosophy around the idea. It is a simple suggestion to think about it and see how it influences your view on existence with no guidelines on how it should influence you- very different from religion.

And it most certainly not worship. How do you worship an idea? People who believe in evolution do not elevate “the creation” (whatever he means by that) just because they understand more about it.

I don’t really have to make an argument here. I’m fairly certain the only people who have read this far already agree with me. Ham is a very strange and confused man. His website has a whole page on what “real” science is. The paragraphs are very thick and difficult to understand. You’ll come away wondering exactly what his argument is. Arguments made without evidence and fact are often like this. They intentionally confuse readers to make them think that what they read was so far above them that the person who wrote it must know what they were talking about.

Compare this to Isaac Asimov, an extremely brilliant writer and scientist who was widely praised for explaining complicated concepts in simple terms. He had nothing to gain from writing like this except to make his readers a little smarter. Remember that it’s likely the people who are making knowledge accessible to you that are really on your side.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Reactions to a Creationist “Argument”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s