Creationists are the Ultimate Skeptics

Creationists are the ultimate skeptics
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa013&articleId=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D0...
http://saintgasoline.com/2007/04/01/if-creationists-held-their-religion-to-th...
Creationists are the ultimate skeptics. They will believe in men being raised from the dead and talking ghosts that can impregnate virgins without even a shred of evidence, but when confronted with the evidence for biological evolution they transform into staunch critics upholding the highest burdens of proof ever constructed.
The theory of evolution is actually supported with a wide array of evidence. Evolution is right up there with basic principles of elementary physics in terms of observational support. In the face of such overwhelming evidence, critics adopt standards of such unreasonableness that virtually nothing could be considered true if we applied such standards across all areas of inquiry and knowledge. The creationist's argument is based on selectively raising standards. If other proposed ideas were supported by evidence to the degree that biological evolution is, creationists would certainly not doubt these ideas, for example, the theory of gravity and the atomic theory. However, the theory of evolution is fair game for doubt, because creationists selectively demand implausible degrees of evidence for its truth, and won't accept anything less.
Notice how these facts could only truly be considered criticisms of evolutionary theory if we expected complete and total mathematical proof for biological evolution. The problem, of course, is that empirical sciences do not deal with formal proofs of absolute certainty, and must instead rely on evidence and probability, like much of our every day knowledge.
In normal scenarios, creationists do not have such high standards of proof. If, for instance, they found a half-eaten deer carcass surrounded by wolf paw prints, the reasonable conclusion is that the wolves ate the deer. If subsequently they found wolves near by, covered in deer blood, and analyzed the vomit of one wolf and found that it contained deer meat that would be further evidence in support of the rather obvious conclusion that wolves ate the deer in question.
Now, if some wolf-loving skeptic wanted to protect the wolves from this charge of murder, he could adopt the creationist strategy and utilize unreasonably high standards of proof to shield him from criticism. He could argue, for instance, that because no one "observed" the wolves eating the deer, we could doubt the conclusion.
For this skeptic, all the evidence pointing towards the wolves means nothing to him if we cannot directly observe the event in question. He could also remark that the wolf theory leaves out certain details. For instance, it doesn't tell us exactly how many wolves were involved, or whether the wolves first attacked from the right or left side, or whether the deer happened to be looking down at its feet when the attack occurred. They could argue that deer are faster than wolves so it is impossible. The skeptic could argue that these "gaps" in the theory rule out the wolf hypothesis.
Of course, any reasonable person can see that the wolf skeptic sets his standards of proof way too high. We need not directly observe the event, nor explain every trite and inane detail in order to know that the wolves did indeed eat the deer. The evidence of the eaten deer carcass, the wolf paw prints, and blood spattered wolves, the deer meat in the vomit, and so on, all show without a doubt that the deer was eaten by the wolves.
Creationists use almost the exact same sorts of arguments against evolution. When they argue that huge biological changes resulting from evolution have never been observed, they do not realize that scientists need not directly observe single-celled organisms becoming primates in order to reasonably conclude that such an event occurred, just as those who believe that the wolves ate the deer need not directly observe the event to know that it truly happened, given the abundance of evidence supporting the claim.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• atheism
• atheist
• agnostic
• agnosticism
• Freethinking
• freethinker
• logic
• reasoning
• intelligence
• smart
• thinking
• think
• God
• Religion
• Church
• darwin
• creationist
• creationism
• evolution

[FrankaDith]

Very well done ,i'm gonna thumb the video ,post to facebook? NO Ive posted enough and they see me coming but its not cause its not good enough : )

[danygripe]

They didn't observe that God made Earth or animals and humans

[ZeusHelios]

Thanks.

[matthewktube]

@ZeusHelios I've read some accounts and some critiques of those phenomena but don't think I've seen any of the videos. I might have a look, if I get a chance I'll drop a line to let you know what I thought. Cheers.

[ZeusHelios]

@matthewktube Thank you. You have answered well. Thanks for your answers. I would have to agree that reasoning and logic and science are probably our best tools to find the truth of things. As I have said in another comment on another video that if God exist then surely he would have seen to it that we can find him through reason or in some way. Any I would be interested on your thoughts on YouTube videos of peoples Near Death Experiences of heaven and hell. Thanks again

[matthewktube]

@ZeusHelios (CONT) he/she/it exists, is definitely does not directly intervene with proceedings. These are the facts and the facts are always primary.. Whatever stories, legends, myths, hypotheses and ideas you want to surround the unknowns with is up to you, but (whether you like it or not) if tested they will all have to live up to the standards set by the physical world to be considered as true.

Anyway, appreciate the exchange of ideas. Peace, K.

[matthewktube]

@ZeusHelios (CONT) This is why stories like Adam and Eve are useful for their poetic and allegorical nature, but useless if read literally. Spiritual, religious & mythical beliefs can be quite beautiful but only when taken in context of what we are. Does this mean a God/s can't exist? No, not necessarily, but we have to work with what we know - the natural world. In this natural world, we are dealing with biological lifeforms that reproduce with variation (evolve) and a God that, if

[matthewktube]

@ZeusHelios Of course, and I appreciate that you're asking questions about things - it's important that people question things - and the way you framed your question was quite poetic. It would still be problematic for God to change the world in that way after the fall, as he would have to backdate a billion years worth of faked fossils to distribute around the globe. Of course, being omniscient he clearly could, but you would have to wonder why he would do such a thing? To trick us?

[ZeusHelios]

@matthewktube I take your point in that there is a long line of evolution of species. Assuming this is true as there are many arguments against this. But remember Adam and Eve was driven out of the garden from which they were created and into a different world. And in this world evolution was or began to take place. I am not against evolution I'm still looking into it. My comment was just a thought nothing more and to see what answers come back and see where things fit in Thanks for your answer