This arguement against creationism is not an improvement on arguements creationists themselves make..... I mean, "Why would God have ____," arguements are no different from "Goddidit" arguements, are they?
I think not.
The problem is, that creationism makes no predictions. Science-y people like predictions.
People try to come up with predictions for creationism like... "the omni-max God presented in the Bible would create creatures X, Y and Z".
It actually IS of some use. Arguments like..
A. God very much dislikes suffering.
B. Many (most?) creatures on earth base their entire life on the suffering of other creatures.
C. Thus, God can't have created those creatures.
..are logically consistent.
Unfortunatly, Christians have made up a bunch of explanaitions that remove any predicting value.
Creature is the epitome of niceness and perfectness? Evidence of creation!
Creature is nice and all but a bit impractical? It's there to glorify God!
Creature lives of feeding on the brains of small children? Blame the Fall! And Satan! And Eve!
So yeah, at the moment, "how do christians explain xyz" arguments are useless. But I think that it's good for every atheist to at least know and understand this problem, since it's quite a big one for christianity (imho).
And ofcourse... all of this has very little to do with CreVo (wether God allowed creatures to evolve or created them instantly makes no difference since time has no meaning for God)
Upvote
0