What I learned from Young Earth Creationists (Part 1)
This is the first in a 12-week series based on my experience watching and discussing young Earth creationist videos with believers. The videos are produced by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and titled "Unlocking the Mysteries of Genesis".
Today (8 January 2015) I attended a "Bible study" event hosted by the Offutt Air Force Base chaplain, Dave Depinho. I've been attending his Thursday religious discussions for over a year now and he and I get along well. We've talked several times about my atheism. He's a nice guy, caring and reasonable.
Today's event kicked off a 12 week series of videos by the Institute for Creation Research entitled "Unlocking the Mysteries of Genesis". I struggled over whether to go. I knew that there were likely to be arguments that would make me angry, such as that "scientists are misrepresenting or falsifying data because they are atheists and can't accept the truth the evidence clearly reveals - that there is a God and nature is designed".
In the end curiosity and the desire for a challenge won out. And I'm glad I went!
About 20 folks attended. Dave introduced me as a member of Omaha Atheists and mentioned that I'm setting up the Offutt Humanists group. He joked that after the video he would give me a few minutes to explain how it had changed my mind and made me a believer. He asked for my reaction when the video was done. I hope, next time, that someone else gets a chance to talk! :-)
What to say about the video? I did my best to keep an open mind but the video presented very well established, predictable arguments. Highlights:
Good production values and lots of science-y imagery. The double helix popped up in the first few seconds.
The host, Markus Lloyd, uses a great range of styles in his presentation. Sometimes slow and serious, sometimes light and fun, always friendly and likable.
"The fundamental question is whether nature is designed or did it just happen." This common rhetorical technique is both a false dichotomy and a straw man - there are other options than 'designed' and 'just happened'. The evolutionary theory's explanatory power isn't a claim that it 'just happened'. Posing the question this way is very useful to the video's real purpose which is to force viewers to relate 'designed' with 'living in a purposeful world planned by a loving creator' and 'just happened' with 'living in a cold and purposeless universe that is the result of random chance'.
Nowhere in the video was the evolutionary theory explained. Seldom was it fairly represented. Language was used throughout that suggested that evolution is a deliberate process. "Fish swimming near the shore evolved legs and became amphibious." More accurate language would have been that "Fish with random mutations that made them better able to survive in shallow water had a higher reproductive rate than their non-mutated siblings and passed on their mutations. Over a long time changes accumulated that made those fish unable to reproduce with the fish that didn't undergo those changes (new species). Over a much longer time further changes were selected for which we would recognize today as 'amphibious'".
What misrepresentation of evolutionary theory would be complete without a visit to a junkyard? This time it was cars instead of airplanes. Markus walked past rusted wrecks and argued that it would be impossible to put together a car out of random parts (or raw materials!) unless there was both a design and a careful selection and assembly of parts. Throwing together random parts could never make a car...therefore God! This straw man argument suggests that the evolutionary theory has to explain how nature went straight from raw materials to complex creatures such as humans. What they ignore, of course, is that the evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. That (fascinating!) question aside, self-replication, mutation, and long periods of time are all that the evolutionary process requires to produce the most wonderfully 'designed' systems.
"The evolutionary theory is too complicated and unimaginable. Having a creator makes all of this clear and simple." Unfortunately using God as an explanation is useless. God could have created the world any way that he wanted using any (un)imaginable rules. The God hypothesis explains any possible outcome...and therefore explains nothing. It's neither predictive nor falsifiable. It is, however, emotionally satisfying which is sufficient for the video's target audience.
Markus even calls on Occam's Razor in support of the God hypothesis! Calling on God as an answer is simpler than understanding the complications of evolutionary theory and the mountains of evidence that support it. However it falls apart as soon as you ask "how" (magic!) or "why" (uhm...because God wanted to).
"Beauty is not random. It was created and exists for our enjoyment." This is also an emotionally satisfying statement. Let's not confuse the issue by trying to understand how the brain works and exploring what evolutionary pressures might have selected for brain wiring and chemistry that produces positive emotions in the presence of a baby's laugh or a sunrise.
"There is no evidence that there were feathers before there were birds. Feathers just popped into being when birds appeared in the fossil record." Not true, though this used to be the case before better fossils were discovered. http://ift.tt/1tRH5Vp
"Creatures only adapt within their own kind, they don't transition from one species to another." No? "Species" is a man-made concept which is useful scientifically but doesn't exist in nature. A handy definition is that two creatures are of different species if they are unable to reproduce together or can only produce young which are sterile. A common example are horses and donkeys. Evolution has changed them enough that while they can reproduce the resulting mules cannot. Evolutionary theory predicts that horses and donkeys will continue to diverge until they are no longer able reproduce at all. What does creationism predict? What DOESN'T it predict?
"The ability to change is embedded in DNA." Markus suggests that all possible changes are already somehow present in the DNA. This ignores well documented random mutations which create never-before-existing versions of genes.
"Where are the transitional fossils?" Markus presents a box labeled "transitional fossils" which he says contains all of the universally accepted transitional fossils. The box is, of course, empty (cue chuckles from the crowd). Markus describes transitional fossils as representing creatures who existed for only a short period of time as one critter (a fish) changes to another (an amphibian). Where are the fossils showing half-fish and half-amphibian? This is a powerful rhetorical trick. I can show you a fossil that's intermediate in form between an earlier fish and a later amphibian and you can easily argue that it has no relation between the two. Or better yet, claim that there are now two gaps that require transitional fossils...now I'm further behind!
"But scientists disagree about which fossils are transitional!" Yes, they do, but what they are disagreeing about is whether a creature represented by a specific fossil (Joseph-asaurus) had a specific fossil as an ancestor and other specific fossils as descendants. Unfortunately evolutionary theory predicts a very "bushy" tree of life. Joe could be on a parallel-but-separate branch of the tree. One scientist could argue that Joe is a 'grandson' of Andy and a 'grandfather' of Zach while another argues that Joe is a 'cousin twice removed' from Andy and only distantly related to Zach. Scientists have much less argument about living creatures because they can point to differences in the DNA to explain their evolutionary relationships. Paleontologists are limited to studying the age and subtle details of a limited (but growing) number of fossils. If only fossils preserved DNA!
"DNA are the blueprint of life." Nope - DNA are DNA and do what they do. Metaphors are of limited use when describing something for which we don't have a common understanding. But if we must simplify the process then let's call it a recipe. DNA doesn't have genes that corresponds to a 'head' or 'hands' or 'feet'. Genes do only one thing - code for proteins. DNA reacts to chemical cues to activate specific genes resulting in the production of different types of proteins (and, ultimately, cells) at different times during fetal development. It's more a recipe that says "do this for a while then do that" than it is a blueprint with a section that says "here's how to build a head".
At the end of the video Markus narrated the creation story complete with a magical floating light that 'poofed' things into existence. The light produced the universe, the Earth and then husband-and-wife pairs of elephants and other animals on a savannah. Stirring music, good special effects, very moving.
So was I converted? Not this time. But there are still 11 videos to go!
Creationism has the advantage in that it is simple, understandable and many people find it emotionally satisfying. Creationism is also part of a bigger package if you want to be part of the fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim or Jewish) social group. Creationism doesn't have do the work required by the scientific method - it's conclusions are "revealed" and it can limit itself to finding supporting evidence. And what possible evidence wouldn't support a "theory" that predicts any possible outcome?
Science is much more challenging to understand. It's unforgiving and, like the universe, doesn’t care whether the answers it reveals make us feel good or not. It demands complete honesty from us and makes no promises.
Science is, at its heart, an exercise in audacity and courage. We make the bold but necessary assumption that the universe obeys laws and can, at least in principle, be understood. It's hard work but the results are all the sweeter because of the struggle. We give up a mythical "favored place" in the universe but receive, in return, the society of people who value intellectual honesty over faith and the worship of mysteries.
It's a great and beautiful thing to be human!
As stated earlier, this is the first of 12 blogs reviewing this series of YEC videos, which Tom watched in early 2015. Godless rEvolution will be publishing this series of essays over the next few months. To follow the series, you can search this blog for the category "YEC".
Thomas Gray is an Army Officer and the founder of Offutt Humanists, a command-approved private organization serving the needs of the free-of-faith in the Offutt Air Force community. He also serves on the board of Omaha Atheists as Secretary, and is an atheist, nuclear scientist, activist, father, maker, and an all around nice person. You can find Tom on Facebook, or at the Omaha Atheist Book Club, or making cool stuff on his 3D printer with the OA Youth Group.
from Blog - Godless rEvolution http://ift.tt/1HmLHIs
via IFTTT
blakekathryn
2087
discoholicmusic
prguitarman
jacobvanloon
kaledo-art
romaincrisis
izzy806
dailybridgerton
pixelskylines