The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

What Creationism Is (EvoWiki)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Evowiki headerlogo.JPG
Response Article

This article (What Creationism Is (EvoWiki)) is a response to an evolutionary or anticreation assertion that was published on the EvoWiki website.

Below is a point by point refutation and analysis of the article "What Creationism Is" [1] on the EvoWiki website. The portions of the document which are mere proof by assertion, ad hominem, or generalization (and thus useless for any purpose other than allowing the author an emotional outburst) will be labeled as such.

The author admits that his point is not to deal with the facts, but to "cut through the crap and tell us what's really going on." What is found is typical of anticreationist sites and includes logical fallacies, generalizations without evidence, misrepresentations, non-sequiturs, and unfalsifiable conspiracy theories.

EvoWiki CreationWiki
Let us be perfectly clear. This is not an essay to enumerate the varying definitions and guises of creationism, and its attendant corollaries. It is assumed a priori that the reader will know these things (there is an introduction here). No attempt to give credibility or chance to creationists, the bias is clear and the dogma that naturalistic evolution has on evolutionists is clear. Emotional venting and demagoguery are much more persuasive.
Thus one is left with the patently obvious question, “well, then what is the meaning of titling your essay in such a declarative way?” And the answer is equally obvious, for I mean to introduce creationism and the intellectual detritus which accompanies it. "Intellectual detritus" is a Ad hominem generalization without evidence to support the claim.
At this one might puzzle as to how you do that without defining it, so allow me to clarify. I mean to introduce creationism’s real agenda, and strip it of the sanctimonious shrouds of religious piety and scientific purity that it so loves to seek refuge in. "Sanctimonious shrouds of religious piety and scientific purity" is again a Ad hominem generalization without evidence to support the claim.
No academic treatise on the varying points of opposition to evolution will be offered herein, this is a passionate attack on one of the most deceitful, fraudulent, and sloppiest lies to ever be put over on the civilized world. Ad hominem generalization without facts to support the claim.
Creationists, regardless of which particular brand of creationism they enjoy claiming allegiance to, are united in two basic assertions. They can be effectively encapsulated in the following statements: that they are the ones practicing true science, and that it is they and they alone who are the guardians of true faith in the written and revealed word of their deity. Both are of concern as surely as they are false, but it is the first which must particularly concern the scientific community, and the general public. As to the first "assertion," evolutionists likewise believe and repeatedly state that they are the ones practicing true science. Is it somehow less than meritorious to believe you're doing things right? As to the second assertion, this massive and unfalsifiable ad hominem generalization about the religious lives of creationists is totally irrelevent to the scientific endeavor of creation science, the merits of which he has failed to respond to.
The argument goes something like this. Creationism is real therefore evolution is false and if evolution is false creationism must be real. Straw man. The argument does not, and has never gone that way. The first argument is that creationism is demonstrably historically true and that evolution is demonstrably historically false. The second argument is that because evolution is demonstrably false, creationism is demonstrably true, and no other alternatives have presented themselves as probable, that creationism is the most reasonable explanation available today.
To any intelligent person the circularity and philosophical bankruptcy of this standpoint, central to all creationist pontifications on science, is obvious. "Only stupid people disagree with me." Excellent line of argument.
They literally beg the question, presuming to be true the very thing they wish to prove. By no means. When the available evidence leads one to believe in creationism and then one seeks more and stronger evidence along those lines, one is simply trying to better understand and demonstrate the opinion one has drawn from the evidence.
Creationist "science" consists of rejecting every fundamental precept upon which science is constructed, from empiricism to falsification. Massive hyperbolic generalization without facts to support the claim.
On philosophical grounds, it would take a healthy dose of Thorazine to convince anyone with even a modicum of brains about them, that creationism meets the minimum requirements of science. Ah yes, another "You're stupid if you disagree with me" argument. Still only generalizations, hyperbole, ad hominem, and straw men up this point, however.
But scarcely take my word for it; let us examine creationist arguments themselves. First and foremost how do they arrive at their conclusions? Scientists do so by the Scientific Method, a process so fundamental to scientific inquiry that I will not elaborate on it here. Do creationists adhere to this method? Absolutely not. They arrive at a priori conclusions and then seek to mold reality to their warped view thereof. Massive ad hominem, generalization, again without evidence.
This is an attempt to define the world, not describe it. At best it could be referred to as philosophy, but the name of that discipline would be sullied by such a referral and thus I shall abstain. Massive conclusory dismissal, again without providing any evidence.
In so doing creationists reject empiricism, the very heart of science, and instead erect a twisted edifice to subjectivity and rhetoric with which they proceed to formulate the most farcical concepts ever imagined. Perhaps the author has not noticed that his whole essay is an ediface of rhetoric totally devoid of substantive evidence from which an empiricist might draw a conclusion. Perhaps a glace at Flood geology would provide the author with solid geological facts to answer.
Thus, falsification is automatically ruled out. Massive generalization without evidence.
Anyone familiar with the work of the great philosopher of science, Karl Popper will realize that the ability to falsify a hypothesis is pivotal to its recognition as scientific as opposed to philosophical. Consider for instance, the opinion that the author has an invisible friend next to him twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. Can this be falsified? Of course not, as some convoluted explanation can always be thought up to explain away any discrepancy between reality and my assertions that, yes, I have an invisible friend next to me. Creationist "hypotheses" are much the same. False comparison. Creationists look to flood geology, irreducible complexity, specified complexity, the absence of transitional forms, and historical accounts of creation and the flood from all cultures in the ancient world. Whether the evidence is valid is a separate issue. But comparing creationism with having an invisible friend is a false comparison.
They are so obscenely malleable, so devoid of factual basis, that they can take shape to engulf any new data brought to light to refute them, incorporate these data, and claim that the hypothesis was congruent with these data all along. Here are some of those "obscenely malleable" propositions: 1) there was a worldwide flood 4000 years ago; 2) apes and humans are not related; 3) life has never been observed arising spontaneously from non-life.
If creationists unilaterally reject empiricism and falsification, the two central tenets of scientific thought, then on what grounds can we possibly call creationism science, if we mean to keep a straight face? Perhaps if they did that in any way, shape, manner, or form, this argument would have some substance.
To this, the worthy creationist will object that they defend their ideas on the basis of their scientific merits. Yet this is curious, as creationists must inevitably invoke a deity of one sort or another to explain the significant discordance between reality and their theories. Is it "unscientific" to invoke a "human of one sort or another" to explain the existence of paintings on rock walls? Of course not. Acts by intelligent beings may be inferred from physical evidence in science. The author's assumption, of course, is that there either is no God, or that this God never does anything. Creationists reject that assumption, and believe, on the basis of historical documents and physical evidence, that a deity exists and actually does things from time to time, and that a science that dismisses that possibility is an inadequate and atheistically biased science.
Now what makes this particularly interesting, is that you do not see scientists calling upon their respective deities to explain flaws in their research, or similar problems. Why is this? Simple, because that is not how science works. So science, by definition in your view, assumes a priori either that there is no God, or that he never does anything in the universe, because science can never identify any of his acts. You have defined atheism into your science.
If creationism cannot meet the basic requirements by which science is defined it therefore follows that it is nothing more than opinion without basis in reality, held on faith alone. If one defines science as atheistic (which you do), then you're quite right. But who are you to define science as atheistic?
And on matters of faith, what of the tireless and rather agitating creationist claim that they have a monopoly on the most pious and profound religious faith conceivable? Irrelevent to the case of creation science, but certainly revealing the author's true motives in writing this article.
It has always struck me as an odd claim, for a variety of reasons. Historically, those with the deepest and most truly profound faith have been those for whom faith alone was enough. Who are you to decide who has the most profound faith? Isn't that a rather bigoted, judgmental, and self-righteous judgment to make?
Did he feel compelled to try and bend science to the defense of his faith? Not at all. Non sequitur. Because one good Hindu man was not a biblical creationist, therefore no Christians, Muslims, or Jews should be biblical creationists?
For the truly pious are secure in their faith and need not invoke crusades against reality in an attempt to reassure them that their faith is merited. Thus creationists strike me as the most insecure, faithless, and impious adherents of religious teachings to ever exist. You assume that creationists lack evidence to support their claims, and then label them with unfalsifiable accusations of psychological and moral failing. But you have yet to deal with the facts.
And yet at the same time, they have the temerity to pontificate on what their respective deities can and cannot do, in an attempt to define not only nature but God or the gods (or goddesses, or whatever). As opposed to our author, who has determined that God never acts in the universe. Yet despite this fact, he still has the moralistic hubris to judge the faith of creationists.
Assuming for a moment that there are such deities, I cannot help but think that they would find it rather distressing that their characters were being redefined by a naïve lot of mortals on a lonely planet in a side-arm of the Milky Way. The temerity of such a gesture is astonishing, and it naturally makes one wonder just who these creationists think they are, preaching to the divine. More unfalsifiable psychobabble. Who are you to make those sorts of judgments, considering your total failure thus far to respond to any facts relevant to the issue?
And, when one thinks of that, it leads inescapably to a cleverly hidden and far more disturbing idea. Perhaps they have no religious aspirations at all. Perhaps this is a rhetorical farce to use religion as a lever through which to gain political and personal power. Unfalsifiable ad hominem generalization without evidence to suppport the claim.
Creationists exploit the faith of well-meaning Christians (and those of other religions) to further their own purely political, financial and otherwise selfish goals at the expense of reality. Unfalsifiable ad hominem generalization without evidence to support the claim.
They have not the slightest interest in true theology, the meaning of faith, or service and fidelity to the God they claim to so cherish. More of this childish self-righteousness. Who are you to make those sorts of sweeping assumptions?
Creationism is a tool crafted to a very specific end; it is nothing more than the regurgitated claptrap of an ideology bereft of merit, and loathsome in its intentions. Loathsome being a subjective impression revealing your own biases.
For there can be no mistake that creationism means to destroy science, and replace it with a hollow shell of lies and deceit. And why, you might ask? The answer is not hard to fathom. Religion has ever been a crutch of despots and all those who seek to secure their eminence at the expense of all others. And now the author's true biases are revealed again. He hates religion itself, by his own admission. Why shouldn't he hate the efforts of the religious to explore and defend their beliefs on an empirical basis?
History is quite unequivocal in teaching this lesson, and yet as blind as we are we seem to have failed to learn it. 45 million Christians were killed for their beliefs during the 20th century. The majority of them were killed by fundamentalist atheists like Stalin and Mao, who spouted your same views about religion. If history has taught us anything, it's that murderers come from all walks of life, even yours.
Creationists aim to not only destroy science in an effort to bolster their claims, they mean to redefine the United States of America, eviscerate the Constitution, and effectively dismantle American democracy, by instituting religious indoctrination in the schools and halls of public policy making. And your little dog Toto, too.
They mean to supplant all of these things with a form of oligarchy wrapped in the shrouds of science and religion redefined. A science grounded in scores of Historical creationist scientists and the Creation scientists of today.
And if one doubts this, one need only consult the publications of such notable creationist organizations as ICR, and the Discovery Institute to name but a few. Creationists are quite explicit in their stated goals, and there is little room for doubt as to what they wish to do, if allowed the chance. This is what creationism is. And thus revealed, the need to fight it on all fronts, scientific, philosophical, theological, administrative and judicial, is made all the more clear. There is no higher imperative if we mean to preserve intellectual freedom in this country. After an essay filled with ad hominem, generalizations, proof by assertions, non-sequiturs, straw men, misrepresentations, and conspiracy theories, what better way to end it than with a call to arms.

Related References

See Also