sayonara wrote:
"What we consider to be 'bad' about Creationism as a verb (in the sense that it is the one thing we all agree on as a scientific community; obviously individuals will have additional criticisms) is that in its worst form it has several negative effects on the way in which its supporters think:
- It actively seeks to prevent critical thought,
- It seeks to undermine the education of an entirely valid branch of science,
- It is ludicrously selective in its attacks,
- It passes lies as facts,
- It passes fallacious arguments as reasoning and logic,
- It prevents minds from questioning the world".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLIES: These are interleaved below:
What we consider to be 'bad' about Creationism as a verb...
REPLY: Que? It's a noun
- It actively seeks to prevent critical thought...
REPLY: Au contraire. It is those who for one reason or another support the theory of evolution that seek to stifle all questioning of it, often simply by abuse of their opponents rather than actually engaging with the known facts and the surrounding arguments. Let the theory of evolution be tested against other explanations for origins, as would be the case with any other unproven theory
- It seeks to undermine the education of an entirely valid branch of science...
REPLY: Wait a minute, the 'education'? Isn't that more than a touch loaded? Yes, creationsists seek to undermine a theory which we say cannot be supported by the scientific facts. Any theory worthy of the name should be able to withstand criticisms of it. If I asked you, for example, to give me even a rough approximation of the genealogical line that took us from the original inanimate cells - that somehow came to life 4.5 billion years ago, and from the earliest 'simple' amoeba, right down to homo sapiens, coud you do so? If not, you don't have a very good theory
- It is ludicrously selective in its attacks...
REPLY: Is it? No, we bring evidence from biology, from the rocks, from the fossils, from physics, from genetics, and it supports our case. Then we look at the weaknesses of the bases of evolution theory, like the ludicrously inexact and contradictory 'science' of radiometric dating, to give but one example. How precisely are we 'selective'?
- It passes lies as facts...
REPLY: Isn't that a bit rich coming from a group of 'scientists' who invented false drawings of embryos (Haeckel), constructed the fake Piltdown Man, and falsified the evidence relating to peppered moths? Yes, some creationists have been wrong in some of their claims, and that has been admitted and frankly discussed on the ever-growing number of creationist websites. Can you name just one creationist 'lie' on a similar scale as Haeckel's blatant forgeries and the 50-year shame of so-called 'missing link' Piltdown Man?
- It passes fallacious arguments as reasoning and logic...
REPLY: Let us have one specific example and I will respond
- It prevents minds from questioning the world...
REPLY: Virtually the same point as "It actively seeks to prevent critical thought" above.
Has it occurred to you that in order to become Christians and young earth creationists, after being brought up on a staple diet of 'evolution is a fact - just accept it', have very much had to use 'critical thought' to reach the place they have reached?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------