“The evidence found in nature supports creationism.”
Here’s how creationists like Ms. Coulter seem to prove that their deity exists: “Since there are gaps in the fossil record, unanswered questions about the evolutionary history of life, and debate in the scientific community, evolution must be wrong – which of course means that creationism is correct.”
For once, I’d like to see them stop trying to attack something that doesn’t fit their creation myth and instead come up with some evidence of their own. You can’t prove God exists by trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution; this is applying the either-or logic fallacy. The creationists are saying that either Hypothesis A is correct or Hypothesis B is correct. Oh really, why is that? Can there not be a Hypothesis C? But this is how they operate. If they find any question about evolution that a scientist can’t answer, they crow triumphantly: “Ha-ha! We will by default.”
This tactic is the best they can come up with. They do it because they have no case. They can produce no evidence whatsoever, and their only explanation is that divine magic explains every tough question. Imagine Einstein trying to prove relativity merely by trying to poke holes in Newton’s theory. Moreaptly yet, imagine if Charles Darwin had tried the creationist method rather than actual science: “There are things you creationists don’t know about God? Very well, we automatically win. God must not be real, and a natural process must have created life. No, we can’t explain how this process works, and we don’t even have to because Nature works in mysterious ways, but obviously it’s true because you can’t answer every question about God.” Absurdities are more humorous when they’re close to the truth.
Leaping to “God did it,” is not only intellectually torpid, it also fails as a reasonable replacement. Why did God spend two billion years of history watching only microbial life before He decided to make something more complex? Why did He wait 570 million years after His Cambrian “creation event” before creating humans? Ninety-nine percent of all the species that have ever existed are extinct. Did God create all the uncountable species that have ever lived, including all the unsuccessful ones, each at different points throughout billions of years? If so, why does it appear as if He tried out some species, allowed them to go extinct, then moved on to other species that appear more like the modern ones we see today? Why did He create dozens of species of elephant-like creatures, each progressively more like modern elephants, and allow all but two to go extinct? Why did God put so much junk in our DNA that just happens to look like detritus from an evolutionary past? Why did God give chimpanzees twenty-four chromosomes, then fold two of the human chromosomes together to give us twenty-three? In tracking mitochondrial DNA, why haven’t geneticists found a bottleneck that would indicate when and where God created the first man and woman? Why did God give whales nonfunctional hipbones and femurs? Why did God give give us wisdom teeth, flawed spines and knees, and an appendix? Why did He create so many intermediary species between aquatic creatures and four-limbed walking creatures? Between reptiles and mammals?
In her book Godless, Ms. Coulter never goes any further than trying to discredit evolution. She doesn’t present an alternate theory to answer any of these questions. Even if we take away the theory of evolution, she can’t even begin to explain how the geological record and life’s history supports the idea of a creator, let alone the anthorpocentric interventionist deity from her particular fairy tale. She never presents on shred of evidence that points to the existence of a creator. The only so-called argument she makes is this: “My opinion is that the evidence for evolution is inconclusive, so therefore (my) god exists and designed everything.”
Ms. Colter is a political “right-winger” that seems perfectly willing to allow herself to be used by the political right as an attack dog very similar to Mr. Carvill on the left. She is a regular “talking head” on any number of “news” media outlets and most usually ends up in shouting matches with her counterparts from the left.
I am not at all surprised at her embracing Creationism as a large majority of her “constituents” (Christian Right) believe in Creationism.
It is a sad state of affairs to see the Conservative Movement of Barry Goldwater (political) and Ayn Rand (philosophy) both very powerful intelluals morph into what it is today. I might add I joined that movement in 1963 and voted for Barry Goldwater in my very first presidential election in 1964. I will also add I left that movement in 2001 and have never looked back.
Using Brian McLaren’s book title “Everything Must Change” meaning the “framing stories” we live our lives by, I look to the future with a much brighter outlook than I have had in years.
How’s this comment to your post for “sterotyping”! But the passion for that lost movement at this moment overrides any rational dialogue; so the ranting!
Comment by spiritualway — July 22, 2008 @ 4:22 pm |
Of course Ann Coulter does make a very good case for Creationism in that she appears to be completely un-evolved.
The “God of the Gaps” argument is not a great deal more challenging than the debates you’re likely to find in a schoolyard. I equate it to someone suggesting that I don’t speak English because I don’t know every word in the dictionary and then from there making the leap to “You don’t speak English, therefore it follows you must speak French”.
Excellent post by the way
Comment by Lucy Lowe — July 22, 2008 @ 11:45 pm |