Reductio ad nauseum.

Posted: August 8, 2007 in Celebrating Diversity, Christianity, Creationism, Evolution, Politics, Rants, Science

Well, I had thought to gin up one last creationsim post, but from reading the comments on and from several other anti-creationism (or in some cases, anti-creationIST) blogs, I’ve come to the sobering, if not unsurprising conclusion that as far as “science” is concerned, the battle is over and creationism lost.  And anyone who hasn’t yet awoken to this reality is just tilting at windmills, getting all red in the face as they wave their Bible at you and call you a heretic.

Creationism is presumptively defined within the “scientific community” as inherently unscientific.  It is a cut and dried, either/or proposition.  It’s evolution (and thus science), or creationism/ID and theological posturing.  This is the corporate position, and the only acceptable view.

 Any attempts to approach the issue from any other viewpoint are met with the sort of indulgent head-patting and amused smiles usually reserved for young children and Alzheimer’s patients.

 Hard to fight that.

So, failing that, I return to one of my tried and true favorite pastimes:  making fun of the Democrats.

Found this link somewhere.  It’s a very disturbing (if not completely unsurprising) example of the moral “mandate” so many Dems feel to circumvent established law if it serves their higher cause.

http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/Comments.asp?svComment=18096

Read through it.  Amazing stuff.  Don’t like the results of the vote?  Change the results.  Heyyyyy, wait a minute.  Now wasn’t it the Dems who were screaming the loudest about voter disenfranchisement and a “stolen election?”   Hmmm.  Funny, that.

About these ads
Comments
  1. laelaps says:

    Not to draw this out even further, but I wanted to make one last comment. You wrote;

    “the battle is over and creationism lost.”

    Well, if you mean the concept that the world is less than 10,000 years old, where dinosaurs lived alongside man until the Flood covered the earth, just before the Ice Age that followed and the dispersal of people from Babel (because God was threatened by people building a tower), then yes, creationism has lost. If you’re talking about intelligent design, they may yet come up with something interesting, but they actually have to do some work rather than writing popular books. Scientists have been clamoring for over a decade for ID advocates to actually do some research to show that their position has something to it, and they have generally ignored the scientific community, ID and creationism remaining philosophical positions rather than anything with scientific proof. Creationism isn’t dismissed because it’s religious, but rather because it has been shown to be wrong in core areas for over 150 years and has offered no positive scientific proof that it’s correct. Unless positive proof for a creator is able to be gained from study of the natural world alone, creationism will continue to be void of any scientific merit, and even then I have to wonder if the designer might turn out to be someone that the creationists didn’t expect (indeed, not only does design have to be shown, but when, how, and by whom it occurred).

  2. Steve B says:

    What would you consider proof that a biological system was the result of design influence rather than random chance or reactive adaptation? Are you suggesting that creationist have to come up with a unique data set themselves, rather than examining the existing data already discovered? If so, isn’t that a bit of a circular argument? You criticize the ID folks for ignoring existing research, and then require that they come up with their own, because simply analyizing existing works and “writing popular books” about it is cheating?

    As I’ve tried to suggest, examining the available data from a scientific viewpoint, and based on your results, coming to the conclusion that the system was designed rather than an iterative aggregation of optimized oopses, isn’t considered a valid conclusion within the scientific community. There is currently only one accepted/acceptable/allowable solution.

    Creationism CAN’T be scientific because it isn’t ALLOWED to be by those who make the rules.

    In effect, you can’t fight city hall.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s