Annoying Claims!

[anonymous1515]

**Disclaimer**
Here comes a mini-rant...

One of the most annoying claims that I come across when I debate creationism goes something like this:

"Evolution is just a THEORY. It's not a FACT."

The second claim that frustrates me is the following (and I don't mean to assert that all creationists believe this) :

"The chances of life arising on earth through random chance (i.e. abiogenesis) are almost zero. Hence, evolution does not exist."

I realize that both of these statements would ONLY be made by the most simplistic and misinformed creationists. But I still find that a surprising number of fundamentalists actually make these claims.

Does this annoy anyone else?

 

[Bushido216]

Welcome to the rest of your life!

 

[anonymous1515]

I certainly hope the rest of my life won't entail correcting misinformed creationists.... and if it does, let's hope it's short!

 

[Mallon]

You'll come to ignore people who make ill-founded statements like those once you realize how little sway they actually have in the grand scheme of things. Arguments as demonstrably false as these are regularly laughed out of court when presented as evidence contrary to evolution. Almost makes me wish special creationism could be taught in the science classroom so the kids could see for themselves how bankrupt it really is.
Those who aren't open to correction on these points aren't worth arguing with in the first place. Those who are will eventually see their mistaken ways once they do a little more honest research.

 

[juvenissun]

**Disclaimer**
Here comes a mini-rant...

One of the most annoying claims that I come across when I debate creationism goes something like this:

"Evolution is just a THEORY. It's not a FACT."

The second claim that frustrates me is the following (and I don't mean to assert that all creationists believe this) :

"The chances of life arising on earth through random chance (i.e. abiogenesis) are almost zero. Hence, evolution does not exist."

I realize that both of these statements would ONLY be made by the most simplistic and misinformed creationists. But I still find that a surprising number of fundamentalists actually make these claims.

Does this annoy anyone else?

These statements are logically correct.

And they are super effective toward some large amount of specific audience.

Annoy you or not, it achieved its goal. God bless creationist.

 

[Mallon]

Case in point.

 

[anonymous1515]

Haha. Well juvienissun....I'll take Mallon's advice and not debate with you. You are wrong.

 

[shernren]

I think that instead of simply gritting teeth and rebutting robotically, it's always very interesting, if sometimes academic, to figure out exactly why fundamentalists say the things they do. After all, plenty of biblical Christians believed that it was biblical to be geocentrist - but fundamentalists aren't geocentrists. Again, there have been many biblical Christians not afraid to harmonize Christianity with the best science of their day - but fundamentalists insist a priori that evolution cannot be science, and that it cannot possibly be Christian, before they scientifically "examine" it, thus putting the cart very much in front of the horse.

So it isn't the Bible that makes fundamentalists say what they say. What is it, then? Figuring that out is my passion, and that's why I stick around on these boards despite the often skullheaded shouting from both sides.

 

[anonymous1515]

That is one of the questions I am struggling with too (despite my skullheadedness ).

Interestingly, I was talking with one of my evolution professors a few days ago. He pointed out that only 20 years ago, creationists would even deny microevolution. Today, even creationists agree that microevolution is an undeniable fact. So, why the change? Why argue it in the first place?

Good point shernren. I wish somebody had the answers.

 

[juvenissun]

Haha. Well juvienissun....I'll take Mallon's advice and not debate with you. You are wrong.

If you do not have a good point, I may not want to reply your argument.

If you do have a good point, what are you afraid of?

 

[anonymous1515]

If you do not have a good point, I may not want to reply your argument.

If you do have a good point, what are you afraid of?

Perhaps I should clarify before I continue. Are you a creationist who agrees with the two claims that annoy me?

 

[Vance]

One thing juvi is right about is that they ARE effective in reaching their intended target audience: those who know very little about the subject and want to hear the arguments presented simplistically (even if entirely misleadingly) and in conformity with what they already believe.

Of course, they have no positive effect overall, since they simply reinforce bad scientific thinking and the greatest evil: the association of that bad science with Christianity overall.

 

[Mallon]

One thing juvi is right about is that they ARE effective in reaching their intended target audience: those who know very little about the subject and want to hear the arguments presented simplistically (even if entirely misleadingly) and in conformity with what they already believe.

Exactly. And it's for that reason that special creationism is going nowhere. It is convincing only to those who are already convinced. It's little wonder why 99.9% of all creation "science" or Intelligent Design proponents were conservative Christians to begin with. It's a lousy form of evangelism and, I suspect, will ultimately be the cause of its own undoing. Baloney can only be piled so high before it topples over.

 

[juvenissun]

Perhaps I should clarify before I continue. Are you a creationist who agrees with the two claims that annoy me?

I am a creationist.

The two statements are toooooo general. So agree or not does not really matter. If you enforce a T/F question, then the answer is YES.

 

[juvenissun]

One thing juvi is right about is that they ARE effective in reaching their intended target audience: those who know very little about the subject and want to hear the arguments presented simplistically (even if entirely misleadingly) and in conformity with what they already believe.

Of course, they have no positive effect overall, since they simply reinforce bad scientific thinking and the greatest evil: the association of that bad science with Christianity overall.

It does not directly matter to science. But it could have an effect indirectly in a few cases. For example, one church elder is also the director or a member of a school board.

However, it DOES matter to the audiences themselves. In fact, the effect is critical. I am very glad that the message is very effective.

 

[juvenissun]

Exactly. And it's for that reason that special creationism is going nowhere. It is convincing only to those who are already convinced. It's little wonder why 99.9% of all creation "science" or Intelligent Design proponents were conservative Christians to begin with. It's a lousy form of evangelism and, I suspect, will ultimately be the cause of its own undoing. Baloney can only be piled so high before it topples over.

A very biased view from a person who is trying to find a career on the study of evolution.

It is not that serious as to have any comparison with evangelism. To most people, it is simply another piece of effective cement used to strengthen the Christian faith.

 

[Mallon]

I guess time will tell, eh, juvenissun? If creation "science" is as robust as its lawyers, pastors, and homeschool teachers say it is, then I'm sure it's just a matter of time before it is put to practice in labs around the world. In the meantime, scientists, including yourself, are stuck with what works -- evolutionary, old earth models.

 

[Vance]

The problem is that, while it may "strengthen" the faith of those who already believe, there are three MAJOR dangers:

1. that faith is being strengthened by a falsehood, which can ultimately only do damage.

2. that falsehood creates a major stumbling-block on the way to the Cross for those who already know enough about the subject to not be so easily bamboozled. If they come to associate Christianity with creationism, it could (and does) cause many to refuse to look at Christianity to begin with.

3. it creates a crisis of faith for countless young people who are indoctrinated with the typical creationist "either/or" approach which states that if the Bible is true, then evolution is false, and thus if evolution were believed to be true, the Bible must be false and disbelieved. Someone brainwashed in this way who then comes to review the evidence and discovers the overwhelming nature of the evidence for evolution will inevitably have a crisis of faith.

 

[juvenissun]

I guess time will tell, eh, juvenissun? If creation "science" is as robust as its lawyers, pastors, and homeschool teachers say it is, then I'm sure it's just a matter of time before it is put to practice in labs around the world. In the meantime, scientists, including yourself, are stuck with what works -- evolutionary, old earth models.

True. But at least creation scientists are trying to break it through. I am one of them.

 

[juvenissun]

The problem is that, while it may "strengthen" the faith of those who already believe, there are three MAJOR dangers:

1. that faith is being strengthened by a falsehood, which can ultimately only do damage.

2. that falsehood creates a major stumbling-block on the way to the Cross for those who already know enough about the subject to not be so easily bamboozled. If they come to associate Christianity with creationism, it could (and does) cause many to refuse to look at Christianity to begin with.

3. it creates a crisis of faith for countless young people who are indoctrinated with the typical creationist "either/or" approach which states that if the Bible is true, then evolution is false, and thus if evolution were believed to be true, the Bible must be false and disbelieved. Someone brainwashed in this way who then comes to review the evidence and discovers the overwhelming nature of the evidence for evolution will inevitably have a crisis of faith.

Your points are still arguable. But I will not engage it.

Yes, you are right. Just like many other factors involved in faith, what we know is imperfect, and any idea/theory not mentioned in the Scripture could backfire.