Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Creationism is not based on logical thought.

As most of you know, I am moving to Fayetteville to attend graduate school this fall.

I traveled down yesterday to look at apartments, which involved picking up a copy of the local paper. Along with an ad for a two bedroom apartment for 375 (which I now have a deposit down on), I found this lovely gem:

Logic provides answer

Who made them, the sun, the moon, the wind, the soil and our environment ? If our sun were significantly smaller or was farther away, the Earth would freeze. If our sun were significantly larger or closer to the Earth, we would fry. If our moon didn't stay in its fixed orbit, there would be no tides, our oceans would stagnate and sea life would die. If the moon's orbit was closer to the Earth or was larger, the ocean tides would flood the largest part of the Earth every day. Who was the designer of these things ? If you have a favorite shirt and wanted another just like it, you could order one from the manufacturer that had made it. Or would you just wait and see if it could make itself for you ? Logically, there was a designer and a manufacturer of the shirt. Logically, there is a designer and the one that made our Earth, the sun, the moon and our environment.
DAVID PHELAN / Fayetteville


Oh my god. I really am moving to a land of stupid.

I tried to tell myself that it was ok. That it was a college town. That the program was worth it.

I have to admit, this is scaring me.

I sent in this response:

Recently David Phelan claimed that logical thought supported Creationism, incorporating all of the observations and evidence we have.

The idea that the Earth was created special ignores Hubble's image of the Fornax Galaxy Field. This picture of a chunk of sky smaller than the moon contains 10,000 galaxies, each with billions of stars holding planets where abiogenesis (life) could occur with no need for a creator. A rudimentary understanding of biology shows that following abiogenesis, animals and plants have evolved to fit the world we live in. We have thousands of examples of animals adapting to the changing environment.

We cannot show one instance where our environment has adapted to help us. In fact, the world often hurts and kills humans. Surely hurricanes, drought, and cancer would not exist in a perfect world. However, all of these things are explained if we are adapting to a random planet.

On a planet which is one of billions, where abiogenesis is possible, and humans adapt but the world does not, an intelligent creator becomes a much less logical conclusion.

A repackaging of William Paley's watchmaker analogy fails to take into account our understanding of evolution, abiogenesis, and solar system formation. His argument failed in 1802, and today it withers against the mountain of evidence we have against such creation stories. It is not logical, in fact it clings to our previous explanations, failing to even acknowledge the world it is supposed to explain.

Really? I am really moving to ARKANSAS??

4 comments:

Robert Madewell said...

nisemono3, yes, you are moving to the land of stupid. I know. I moved to Arkansas 7 years ago. However, Fayetteville is an oasis in a dogma dry desert. You'll find other freethinkers in Fayetteville. As a matter of fact, I have to drive 70 miles to Fayetteville every month just to attend a freethinker meeting. I live in Harrison and as far as I can tell I am 1 of 2 atheists in town. And were both old! LOL

Colin said...

You're not too far from Eureka Springs, a nice little hippie haven that is basically the last town you'd ever expect to find in Arkansas.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Welcome to time-sinksville.

Careful in your overstatements:
A rudimentary understanding of biology shows that following abiogenesis, animals and plants have evolved to fit the world we live in. We have thousands of examples of animals adapting to the changing environment.

I'd be wary of bringing up abiogenesis as a strong point for the reach of biology, as biology doesn't have settled story about abiogenesis yet. There are some wonderful ideas and experiments, but it is one area where the lovers of gaps in scientific knowledge can still safely stuff their gods.

I wonder, though, why they don't choose more pedestrian gaps in our scientific knowledge in which to stuff their gods. For instance, we don't understand why Earth's magnetic field reverses its polarity every N years. Is this epistemic gap god-sized?

While it would be a mistake to say that elementary physics and geology would explain such polarity reversals, it doesn't follow that any gods exist.

Blue Devil Knight said...

I misswrote here:
it would be a mistake to say that elementary physics and geology would explain such polarity reversals

I meant to say we haven't yet explained the reversals using elementary physics/geology. I see no reason why that won't happen in the future.