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!
