The Double Standards of Creationism

[Valkhorn]

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Double Standard 1:

Creationists require observable proof for Evolution,
but not observable proof for 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Double Standard 2:

Creationists claim Evolution requires blind faith, and yet rely on blind faith to depend on creationism

------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Double Standard 3:

Creationists claim Evolution won't listen to the real evidence and adapt, but creationism by its own definition can never change since it's mind is already made up

------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

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!

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

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.

 

[tocis]

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) ..."

 

[Dracil]

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

 

[tocis]

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

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?

 

[Dennis Moore]

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

 

[Pete Harcoff]

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.

 

[Phred]

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

.
​

 

[Valkhorn]

Great replies

You came up with double standards I had forgotten about

 

[cze_026]

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

 

[corvus_corax]

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?

On a related note, radioisotope dating is always wrong wrong WRONG, with many many many flaws and holes in the method.

Unless, of course, it was Christians dating some piece of evidence that ties to the bible stories somehow. Now THAT is good science, and radioisotope dating is dead-center-on-the-mark then!!

 

[cze_026]

On a related note, radioisotope dating is always wrong wrong WRONG, with many many many flaws and holes in the method.

Unless, of course, it was Christians dating some piece of evidence that ties to the bible stories somehow. Now THAT is good science, and radioisotope dating is dead-center-on-the-mark then!!
QUOTE]


Frustrating isn't it?

Cze

 

[Valkhorn]

Verily, it is indeed frustrating.

Funny how no creationists have come here in defense of anything.

 

[jwu]

Another thing, i do not recall many instances of a creationist conceding that one particular argument doesn't disprove evolution. Most (not all! there are very few notable exceptions) usually either simply stop posting or try rather desperate lines of reasonings. It almost seems that conceding that one particular argument against the ToE didn't work is perceived like conceding that the ToE is correct.

*shrugs*

 

[Hydra009]

It almost seems that conceding that one particular argument against the ToE didn't work is perceived like conceding that the ToE is correct.

That's it exactly. That's why there are post-and-runs and post-refuted-reused phenomena. It's because of a theological need for evolution not to be true that drives creationists to refuse to back down from even the most absurd arguments.

 

[random_guy]

What about animal kinds and limits of evolution? Many Creationists believe in a world wide flood, and that only the animal kinds were brought on board. The entire biodiversity was hyper-evolved from these kinds.

However, they still think evolution is wrong because there isn't enough time.

 

[Valkhorn]

Wow... it's amazing NO creationists have come to their defense.

 

[Oonna]

Wow... it's amazing NO creationists have come to their defense.

Maybe because they have no defense????

 

[AliceSOBEstudent]

Fine, I'll bite. But...I will be honest and say that I am not really into debating this, and am not rabid about the scientific aspect of things, so I may not be that fun to bait. Also, I'll just say that I would be fine with all origins of life theories/accounts being taught in school as possibilities. What I have a problem with is the way that evolution is taught (well at my HS) as though there are no holes in it, that it is totally proven. Also, some of the examples used in text books are things that have been shown to be fakes. Not that that in itself DISproves evolution, but it doesn't seem right to teach using false example's.
Double Standard 1:

Creationists require observable proof for Evolution,
but not observable proof for Creationism

1. When I think of observable proof for (macro) evolution I don't expect an ape to turn into a man before my eyes. More I would need to see a complete series of fossils (legitimate, no pig's jaws) showing a number of different intermediary steps leading from an ape to a man. I would also need to see the same thing for a few other species. I wouldn't require the entire fossil record to be on display, but enough to really show. However, I can't imagine anyway we could eve have the evidence needed to prove that first life occured randomly other managing to get cells to form in a petri dish, using just the raw materials. Currently when I look at the evidence and think about it I don't see enough evidence to convince me of any particular theory of the origin of life. (Not just evolution.Also, creationism, I have issues with some AiG and Ken Hovind assertions. I think we just don't have enough specific evidence in this erea to show anything being a reasonable doubt.) However, I feel that I have proof for creationism that supercedes the scientific. (ie. B/C God's Word said so.)
3. For me, the standard isn't so much about how much proof is needed for you to believe in evolution, but rather how much evidence do you need for evolution if you are using it to prove that there is no God and/or that creationism is impossible/stupid.

rely on blind faith to depend on creationism....creationism by its own definition can never change since it's mind is already made up
Here's how it is for me: Imagine that you have a mother who has shown that she loves you very much, everytime she's ever told you something all the other evidence proved it to be true, she's even predicted the future correctly. In the past she told you things that other people said were false based on X evidence- afterwards additional evidence came to light that proved that your mom was actually right. In the past your mom has told you that she could do impossible things (like fly or make her skin turn green or shoot fire from her fingertips) everyone told you it was impossible and she was lying, but then she actually did do these things in front of you. And when you got in big trouble for doing something wrong and were facing a $10,000 fine and had no money she sold her kidney to pay it for you.
Then a strange woman comes and tells you that she is your real mother and that this other lady adopted you when you were 18 months. She has pictures of herself pregnant at the right time, sonograms of a baby the same sex as you. She even has fingerprints from when you were born that match yours and a birth certificate naming her as the mother.
The mother who has raised you continues to assert that she is your biological mother. She has friends, family, and neighbors who were alive at the time of your birth who attest to her pregnancy and delivery of you.
This new lady has some interesting evidence and ideas, and it's very confusing and definitely gives me something to think about. But I know that my mom isn't a liar and she was clear in stating that she is indeed my biological mother. Until the development of DNA testing I'll just have to believe my mom.
I have faith in her. But it isn't a blind faith b/c it is built on a strong foundation of evidence of love and trustworthiness shown over time.

That's who God is to me. (Although my examples were a little kookier) And I trust Him more than the current conclusions of science.



Again, there are lots of creationist who feel really strongly that the science is there to prove it. But I went to a special HS for science and technology, so I kind-of had my fill of in depth scientific research and have other things to do in life than immerse myself in the fossil record. Sorry...

 

[Jet Black]

What I have a problem with is the way that evolution is taught (well at my HS) as though there are no holes in it,

well what are the holes?

that it is totally proven.

then the high schools aren't teaching you what science is.

Also, some of the examples used in text books are things that have been shown to be fakes.

I hear this claim from creationists alot. can you provide me with the name of a text book, currently in print, that uses an exposed fake as evidence for evolution, with the page number and preferably a quote of the relevant text? I have posed this challenge many times, and not once has a creationist actually presented such a book to me.

Not that that in itself DISproves evolution, but it doesn't seem right to teach using false example's.

Indeed false examples should not be used, but I have never seen any. have you?

Double Standard 1:

Creationists require observable proof for Evolution,
but not observable proof for Creationism

1. When I think of observable proof for (macro) evolution I don't expect an ape to turn into a man before my eyes. More I would need to see a complete series of fossils (legitimate, no pig's jaws) showing a number of different intermediary steps leading from an ape to a man.

from here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#chronology

here is a load of non-fossil evidence compiled by myself

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10751034&postcount=9

I would also need to see the same thing for a few other species. I wouldn't require the entire fossil record to be on display, but enough to really show.

I can also point you to tetrapod transitionals, therapsid transitionals, theropod transitionals and lots more.

However, I can't imagine anyway we could eve have the evidence needed to prove that first life occured randomly other managing to get cells to form in a petri dish, using just the raw materials.

Abiogenesis is not exactly cells forming randomly, it is itself a chemical process - one that is far from understood of course, but gaining ground.