________________________
Introduction
Science is strengthened through scrutiny. This remains true for all areas of science. Yet, somehow, certain ideas manage to evade enough criticism. If Intelligent Design advocates or creation scientists - same thing - properly considered their “theories” and listened to the sceptics then I imagine we’d have a very different story. In fact, if everyone considered Creationism properly, it would cease to exist. It’s not disputed that ICR and conventional scientists alike have a passion and interest for scientific research. It’s how they go about it that differs. Usually, conclusions and theories are decided on after a rigorous collection and study of data and facts. The Institute for Creation Research already knows its conclusion. I quote: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. For nearly 40 years, the Institute for Creation Research has kept this immutable truth as its guiding principle.” Essentially, they are working towards proving this story, and whatever they find, whatever they conclude, they’ll make it point towards a Universe with a purpose.
All of the sources on ICR’s views will come from their website; http://www.icr.org/ which I must say is beautifully, perhaps even intelligently designed. It’s hard to ignore the aesthetics of every web page and focus on the content but when you do, you should find that it is frustratingly fallacious. So-called proofs for God and Creation are based on assumptions and other pieces of non-evidence. This is a gentle reminder that creationist debaters are all about show and image, not real science or logic.
If this organisation put forward a convincing case, the structure of the Evidence for Creation would be incredibly clever. By demonstrating that God exists, it’s safe to talk about the “Truth” about his Universe. From that we can learn about how this applies to Nature and our planet, how God reveals himself in Life Sciences and therefore all Science, and by then it will tie in with Biblical Accounts. Thus, a good case for Young Earth Creationism is presented. Unfortunately, ICR fall at the first hurdle – that is, at “Evidence for God.” Should we just refute that statement and leave it there, then? No. I’m determined to show how they keep getting up and falling over at each and every hurdle, and by the time the finish line is in sight, Darwin has already received his prize and disappeared off the race course.
NB: You’ll notice that throughout a lot of this, I won’t be using hard evidence to discredit Creation Science. Obviously you can’t prove a negative, but still, as Christopher Hitchens famously said: “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
Science is strengthened through scrutiny. This remains true for all areas of science. Yet, somehow, certain ideas manage to evade enough criticism. If Intelligent Design advocates or creation scientists - same thing - properly considered their “theories” and listened to the sceptics then I imagine we’d have a very different story. In fact, if everyone considered Creationism properly, it would cease to exist. It’s not disputed that ICR and conventional scientists alike have a passion and interest for scientific research. It’s how they go about it that differs. Usually, conclusions and theories are decided on after a rigorous collection and study of data and facts. The Institute for Creation Research already knows its conclusion. I quote: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. For nearly 40 years, the Institute for Creation Research has kept this immutable truth as its guiding principle.” Essentially, they are working towards proving this story, and whatever they find, whatever they conclude, they’ll make it point towards a Universe with a purpose.
All of the sources on ICR’s views will come from their website; http://www.icr.org/ which I must say is beautifully, perhaps even intelligently designed. It’s hard to ignore the aesthetics of every web page and focus on the content but when you do, you should find that it is frustratingly fallacious. So-called proofs for God and Creation are based on assumptions and other pieces of non-evidence. This is a gentle reminder that creationist debaters are all about show and image, not real science or logic.
If this organisation put forward a convincing case, the structure of the Evidence for Creation would be incredibly clever. By demonstrating that God exists, it’s safe to talk about the “Truth” about his Universe. From that we can learn about how this applies to Nature and our planet, how God reveals himself in Life Sciences and therefore all Science, and by then it will tie in with Biblical Accounts. Thus, a good case for Young Earth Creationism is presented. Unfortunately, ICR fall at the first hurdle – that is, at “Evidence for God.” Should we just refute that statement and leave it there, then? No. I’m determined to show how they keep getting up and falling over at each and every hurdle, and by the time the finish line is in sight, Darwin has already received his prize and disappeared off the race course.
NB: You’ll notice that throughout a lot of this, I won’t be using hard evidence to discredit Creation Science. Obviously you can’t prove a negative, but still, as Christopher Hitchens famously said: “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
No comments:
Post a Comment