Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 371 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Creationist Science

Creationists, masquerading in their latest guise as proponents of “Intelligent Design,” love to assert that the evolutionary model has not answered absolutely all questions of biology, and therefore is fit to be discarded.

The typical response by scientists has been to demonstrate the strong explanatory power and practical usefulness of models of evolution. This sort of public airing of the work of science is important, but it’s also important to focus on just how shallow the explanations of “scientific creationism” are.

To give you an idea of just how bizarre the “scientific” theories of creationists can be, let’s check out B.C. Tours, an outfit that takes people on tours of science museums and uses the exhibits there to push their own theory of creation.

The “scientific creationist” alternative posted on their website poses and resolves the following questions:

How could Noah get all the species on the ark?

Easy: he didn’t. He didn’t need to take wolves, fox, and every variety of dog, he’d only need to take a few representative types of dogs. The same applies to big cats, and birds, etc. By limiting the animals to species types, instead of every type there is easily enough room for them all.

Noah would also have taken species that could survive the environmental changes, which eliminates the need for special provisions for each animal. Later, these animals diversified and adapted to specially meet the requirements of their environment. This is NOT evolution (for the lizard is still a lizard, whether he now needs a warmer temperature than he did before), but is adaptation.

How did Noah get the animals to the ark in the first place?

Some (including evolutionists) have suggested that at one time all the landmasses were one. This solves the problem very nicely, since the animals could have migrated to Noah. The possibility also exists that no unique animals lived in remote regions. These unique animals today (such as penguins) would have adapted to polar conditions after the flood. I mention penguins specifically because before the flood there probably were not polar ice caps, though we cannot say so with certainty.

This is the alternative we should be ditching evolution for? Riiiiiiiiight.

13 comments to Creationist Science

  • Juice Tomato

    Tropical penguins. Biological adaptation into new species, but it’s NOT evolution. Continents that have drifted across the entire globe in just six thousand years.

    Hoo! You’re right. These Creationists really are selling us a phony bill of goods.

  • Ralph

    OK, then. Things don’t “evolve” into new “species.” They just “diversify and adapt” into things that are very very different.

    So obviously scientists have gotten the whole “species” thing wrong. Penguins and whatever desert bird Noah put on his ark belong to the same species. Are ostriches part of that species too? Hummingbirds?

  • Mark

    I guess we could hope that this shows just how desperate the creationist movement is becoming. Could we be seeing the beginning of the end of this misguided idiocy?

  • random42

    Heh, I wish. End of Times prophecies have been failing for millenia, but they’re still going strong. People need something big to believe in, so between that and our rather awful educational system, those of us who value scientific thought have a lot of work ahead of us.

  • HareTrinity

    That really is an atrocious attempt at an argument!

    And yes; dogs to all other canines? Excuse me?

    Canis lupis to any other canine would be evolution, and the land masses split up LONG before humans. Well, unless the evidence, along with religious texts such as the Bible, accidentally forgot to mention that, right?

    Interestingly; other sources hint that, at some point in early history, there WAS a large flood, but not nearly as melodramatic as the Bible makes out.

    In Chinese teachings, for example, the animals just moved to higher ground and were fine.

  • HareTrinity

    Revising line 2: Whatever representative canines he took, they wouldn’t have been dogs.

    And taking another example like mice; Wood mice, House mice, Spiney Mice, Harvest mice and many other mice aren’t the same species at all; they’re just lumped into one category.

    There are STILL a LOT of species out there even just taking a “few representatives”.

  • Sarge

    Now, which is the “right” flood story…I’m told there’s a Babylonian version that has Noah, arc, the whole hocus pocus, but there are other survivors, creditors of Noah, and they want him to pony up, and do it toot freaking sweet. Since infallable writ implies that he probably had some on his ark, I wonder if he offered them real ponies? The theological ramifications would be astounding.

  • Ralph

    Interesting, Sarge. What’s your source for the Babylonian flood story.

    But just because a lot of cultures have similar legends doesn’t prove they are true. The Chinese legend of the great flood is also mythical. The legendary sage king Yu, rather than building a boat, saves the world by digging a series of drainage channels.

    Sorry if I offended anybody who believes in myths and doesn’t like to be reminded of it. But, you know, oh well.

  • HareTrinity

    I wasn’t saying either should be taken as undoubtable proof, and floods are a natural disaster that could easily be symbolic, I’m sure, but since it seems to be a trend that a flood of some type is mentioned around the world from various sources refering to roughly the same time period, without links between the areas, it seems reasonable to conclude that there may have been a large amount of flooding around the time.

    And just a world-wide foot of water would be written all over books at the time, so much as it was probably less than that it’s still not entirely impossible that the weather was rainy for a while in more than one area.

  • Ralph

    Well, there’s no doubt there was a lot of flooding. Ancient civilizations often developed along river valleys that provided excellent farming conditions but also threatened floods: The Yellow River, Ganges, Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, etc.

    It’s impossible to really establish the time period of Noah, the ancient Chinese sage kings, the Babylonian epic heroes, etc.

    If there were some global weather event, we should be able to detect it through tree-ring data. That might be interesting, but I’m not aware of any findings on this.

  • HareTrinity

    Good point, though we don’t have trees that old… Maybe evidence from other natural occurences of layer-building.

  • Sarge

    Ralph, I read that years ago, I think it was Joseph Campbell or an appendix in the Golden Bough. The survivors who wanted their dough, and wanted it NOW even with the earth in ruins sort of jumped out and stuck with me.Sort of reminds me of the conservatives today.

  • Ralph

    Yeah, Sarge. More than a little reminiscent of the conservatives who want to keep their tax cut in times of war and natural disaster.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>