The Double Standards of Creationism

I find it quite amusing, and quite sad that there are plenty of double standards in with creationists and creationism. So, I've decided to compile a short list of some of the most common double standards that exist in this pseudoscience called creationism.


This is a very common double standard which exists among all creationists. I've heard many times from creationists who demand observable evidence from evolution, or proof of transitionals, or proof of things that even evolution says will not happen.

For example, a certain member of this very forum just said that because no one has observed an ape turning into a human, it hasn't happened. Yet, this same person did not witness the dawn of time, the dawn of Earth, or even the dawn of civilization - but he felt he was justified in condemning what he was ignorant about anyways.

Well, from an objective standpoint, one must realize what evolution is, and what it isn't, and also what evidence exists, and what conclusions can be drawn from given evidence. Evolution does not say that apes will magically turn into humans. Evolution states that apes and men are essentially the same class of species, and both have had the same common ancestor. Evolution does not specify that a monkey will turn into a human over one generation. Evolution does say that over enough time, and with enough genetic variation within a group of organisms that speciation can but will not definately occur.

Also, while Evolution is supported on a mountain of imperical evidence, creationism is not supported by any evidence. There is never any proof of a global flood. There is certainly no proof that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and there is no evidence that man did not have an ancestor from somewhere - in other words there is no huge gap in skeletal remains which leaves any question of how man has evolved from an earlier form of ape.

Back to the 'ape turning into man' story - I feel that that would more likely explain creationism than it would Evolution. Creationism would expect something miraculous to occur or for there to be divine intervention.

Well, an ape turning into a man over one generation would be nothing short of miraculous, wouldn't it? Remember, Evolution doesn't involve miracles.


I've also heard from many creationists the claim that Evolution requires blind faith because it is simply rediculous or is a fairy tale and is not supported by any evidence.

This is mostly based on misconceptions. The first misconception is that Evolution is not based on evidence. Evolution is entirely based on evidence. In fact, Evolution only came around AFTER the evidence came up which supported it.

Also, Evolution continues to be supported by more and more evidence with each passing year. Evolution is supported by millions of scientists in many different fields and even by christian scientists. Evolution is a science which utilizes the facts first, and draws up a comparitive theory which can best explain how the evidence got there and what it means.

Evolution is also NOT a faith. It is not a religion. It is not a belief system, either.

Evolution is a scientific theory. That's it. It's a tool which is used to explain how live evolved over time, and how life will evolve in the future. Evolution has made plenty of predictions which have been shown to be true. Evolution has also continued to evolve as a theory because it is there to best explain the evidence that exists.

Since faith is often defined as a belief in an unsupported claim, in short: Evolution does not require faith, and evolution is not based on faith.

This is somewhat amusing because Creationism is a religion, and it requires faith in many things which cannot be proven outside a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Remember, a global flood was disproved hundreds of years ago by christian scientists. The earth was proven to be MUCH older than 6,000 years by many independent sources of data - all of which were found in the real world and in nature.

It is quite amusing how creationists often blame evolutions for their own guilty pleasures - believing in something that cannot be substantiated.




Here is another amusing and sad double standard often used by creationists.

I've heard from many creationists that the evidence does not support Evolution or does not support what evolution says. This seems to me like its suggesting that Evolution will not adapt and change to the evidence - when in fact it is the opposite.

Evolution will adapt and even be falsified if the evidence ever is against it. If there is a major hole in the theory, it will not be ignored - and will be dealt with by research and science.

On the other side of the table, Creationism's mind is already made up. It's conclusion is firmly based in scripture and a literal interpretation of Genesis from the Bible. It is immobile, and so it stands to reason that any evidence against Creationism will likely be ignored because the conclusion cannot change.

Evolution is in fact adaptable, and Creationism is stubborn and obtuse.

There could also be more double standards (I'm sure there are plenty) so if anyone else has any more feel free to post them here!

Interesting post, and it was something I was considering making a thread about myself including what you already listed. Though I suppose my ideas were more like internal contradictions rather than double standards, but the distinction is somewhat fuzzy in that regard.

In the same vein as #1 there is the issue of creationists complaining that evolution is not repeatable because earth's history cannot be relived in real time, but they don't apply that same twisted sense of "repeatability" to creationism.

In a restatement of #2 there is the issue of creationists trying to label evolution as a religion rather than as a science, but they are quick to insist that creationism is actually scientific and should be taught as such.

Another concept would be the issue of natural constants. For example AiG tries to argue for a young earth using average sedimentation rates on the seafloor as constants, but they turn around and complain about parameters that are actual, measurable constants like radioactive decay constants. They complain about radiometric dating simply because of the involvement of a constant, but then turn around and misuse averages to manufacture incorrect constants to try support their own arguments. That seems like quite a double standard to me.

They also hold creationism to a lower standard because their arguments are often self-contradictory. Another AiG standard is the sodium-in-the-sea argument. They argue that dissolved materials in the ocean were dramatically lower in the past, but then turn around and claim that evaporite deposits and hundreds of feet thick limestone formations occurred during a global flood despite the lack of dissolved material for this to occur. It also contradicts the very nature of their argument that the flux of dissolved material to the oceans has been constant even though this is demonstrably false by real scietnists and contradicted by what they claim was deposited by a flood which would have disrupted the net flux of these materials. There are plenty of other contradictions as well.

Creationism boils down to rhetorical arguments rather than scientific ones. Creationists don't care if their arguments contradict others they make and don't care if they don't apply the same standard to creationism that they do to science. This shows the level of intellectual dishonesty involved in maintaining and propagating creationism: creationists will even contradict themselves to try to advance their beliefs.

Creationist: "You base your belief in evolution on human reasoning, but humans aren't perfect so you can't trust your reasoning!"

Scientist: "Is that why you claim that 'scientific' creationism is far more reasonable?"

Creationist: "... (silence) ..."

__________________
"ODIN, take this offering from us
be our guidance in war
let us not return without victory

RATHER WE DIE!"

(Stormwarrior, "Sigrblot")

Careful, a lot of Creationists will merely settle for the two being equal so they can go about teaching it in the classrooms.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are Creationists, and there are Realists. Which one are you? - Dracil
"The Bible is true, and some of it happened" - Catholic priest
"There may be many other fish in the sea, but there are just as many fishermen." - Dracil

I've yet to meet any creationist who still insists on "equal time" after being reminded that in that case, creation myths from all kinds of other religions would have to be granted equal time too. Make it clear to an "equal time!" creationist that this means that we'd teach Christian creationism on Monday, the Norse (Asatru) creation account on Tuesday, Vedic creationism on Wednesday and so on, and listen closely to his reply - if there is any reply that is.

Kind of instantly reveals the true agenda behind that claim, no?

__________________
"ODIN, take this offering from us
be our guidance in war
let us not return without victory

RATHER WE DIE!"

(Stormwarrior, "Sigrblot")

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Valkhorn again.

__________________
--Alice, on "the Jabberwocky"

My favorite double standard is the fact that creationists demand the "flaws" of evolution be exposed, yet seem perfectly content to ignore any flaws with creationism.

__________________
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution

Dontcha get it? The goal is to attempt to claim science is the same as religion then claim they have the only true religion.

__________________
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. ..." - Barry Goldwater

Great replies

You came up with double standards I had forgotten about

Great Thread!

My favorite double standard, is not specifically Creationist guided, but it makes me laugh/ticks me off every time I hear it. I listen to Christian frequently, (hey I love the music), but unfortunately, I have to shuffle through the chaff of biased news (For good news I go to BBC, CBC, and NPR).

Frequently, there will be some news bit that concerning evolution, and/or some application of genetics. And, as such, is condemned and the science is blind theory, and isn't supported by a good biblical world view. Then out of the other side of their mouth, these same preachers/news broadcasters/commentators will laud the same scientific findings and applications, as proof that a fetus is human and abortion is a crime.

So, when science supports evolution its wrong, but when the same said science can be used as leverage in the anti-abortion debate, it's good?

Now that is a double standard.

Cze