The Master List

Below is a list of some of the major mistakes, fallacies and lies that Creationism is largely based on. If I’ve missed anything, by all means, let me know in a comment!

1) Any answer at all is better than saying ‘I don’t know’.

The big one, and the one that makes the least sense. There are many questions that nobody knows the answer to, such as ‘What was there before the Big Bang?’ or indeed, ‘Was there anything before the Big Bang?’ We don’t know how life first developed or if it has developed elsewhere, nor will we ever have a complete picture of how every species on Earth evolved; such knowledge will almost certainly be forever beyond our grasp. Scientists (and those interested in science) are more than willing to acknowledge these gaps in our knowledge; go to Wikipedia and you’ll find lists of open problems in almost any field of study you can think of. To a scientist, there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying ‘I don’t know’.

Creationists do not realise this, which is why they’re under the impression that filling gaps in our knowledge with pure guesswork – ‘God did it, as described in the Book of Genesis’ – makes sense. For a Creationist, admitting ignorance on anything means that you’ve ‘lost’, a mindset that makes no sense whatsoever in an honest search for knowledge, but is perfectly at home in the world of politics.

We must be willing to admit to and even celebrate the gaps in our knowledge. If you understand why, you’re already a long way towards understanding why Creationism is the very opposite of real science.

2) It’s all Evolution

Creationists frequently lump such disparate ideas the Big Bang Theory and abiogenesis in with evolution, usually before pointing out that ‘Darwin had no explanation for the beginning of the Universe’ or something else equally ridiculous. This is a case of projecting, in this case the religious mindset onto an area of scientific enquiry. Which leads us to…

3) Projecting

Creationists are exclusively religious. Since Creationism is essentially a huge and very poor critique of evolution (rather than a body of knowledge in its own right), Creationists inevitably come to believe that evolution is a religion. They probably spend more time thinking about evolution than anybody but an evolutionary biologist does, and so they project their own religious viewpoint onto it.

Evolution is not a religion, and neither is science. It doesn’t matter how long or torturously convoluted your justification for this idea is – you are wrong. Actually studying science rather than rehashed AiG publications will dispell this notion almost instantly.

4) Your Average Joe has enough knowledge and expertise to single-handedly bring about a scientific revolution

So, you’ve just read an article that claims to smash evolutionary theory to pieces, thus pulling the heart out of modern science itself? Great! Before you celebrate, though, take a look at who actually wrote that article. If they’re not the recent recipient of a Nobel Prize, they’ve probably made a few mistakes along the way. Unless, of course, you also believe that:

5) There’s a conspiracy

The reasoning behind this one goes something like this:

If there was a huge conspiracy to stifle Creationism, evolution would be taught in classrooms
Evolution is taught in classrooms
Therefore, there is a huge conspiracy to stifle Creationism

If you think I’m being too harsh, watch Expelled sometime. Creationists seem incapable of even considering that the icons of their delusion – Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ben Stein, etc. – are as wrong about science as everyone keeps saying they are. (Ironically, this is one of the biggest charges they like to level at so-called ‘evolutionists’.)

Trust me, there is no worldwide conspiracy to destroy religion and stop Creationism from taking its rightful place at the cutting edge of science. Creationists are laughed out of legitimate centres of learning because they really are that wrong, without exception.

That’s all for now, but I’ll be updating this list as time goes by. Let me know if I’ve made a mistake or if you think I’m missing something important!


3 Responses to The Master List

  1. cubiksrube says:

    4 is one you need to be careful with. The facts are what’s important, not the authority behind them. It’s not entirely unheard of for paradigms to be toppled by the ideas of, say, a Swiss patent-office clerk. And sometimes a multiple Noble prize winner can go a bit off-course and become unreliable.

    Admittedly, being just an Average Joe isn’t the best starting point for overthrowing the whole of science (to be Einstein, you don’t just have to come from an unlikely background and have unconventional ideas, you also have to be an unprecedented genius), but it could happen. The way to do it, though, is to submit it to scientific scrutiny, and allow any opponents to the theory to test it as thoroughly as they want. If an idea can stand up to something like that, then it might yet make for good science, whoever came up with it.

    Another element that might belong on this list is Creationism’s inflexibility. If it admits to any new facts or evidence or interpretation that alter it in any way from its defining parameters (like, say, the book of Genesis), then it’s not Creationism any more.

  2. forknowledge says:

    Thanks for the input! You’re of course correct that authority doesn’t make someone right, but in this case, overthrowing evolution (and by extension, a good portion of modern science) would be a feat of such magnitude that I think we can expect anyone who performs it to become famous very quickly.

    Ironically, evolution is the theory which submits itself to scientific scrutiny and transparency, despite the fact that Creationists frequently accuse ‘evolutionists’ of being opaque and of circumventing the usual workings of science – even while they themselves attempt to smuggle their religion into classrooms via the backdoor.

    I’ll be updating the list to include that (thanks for reminding me) and your point about infelxibility, in the near future!

  3. […] the Master List – More Reasons Why Creationism Fails This is an addition to the Master List I posted a few days ago. Thanks to cubiksrube, who suggested both of […]

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: