Last Update: 08 Jan 00
Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay
REPLY #51 TO
"EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM"
(R) I enjoy debating this subject. Unfortunately I cannot "debate" it within this site's forum since we do not have opposing view points.
(MB) That's no problem. It's always good to hear from those who agree with me, too.
(R) What I would like to address is the fact that whenever I have attempted to debate this issue with hard core Creationists, the argument usually ends abruptly and often with a complete refusal to address any of my points.
(MB) That's the norm for such debates. Primarily, it's because most Creationists seem to be fixated on one or two points. When those points are refuted, they have nowhere else to go. Since most are capable only of stating points and not of defending them, they are ill-equipped to keep a debate going. Most often they'll either just disappear or will fire off one parting shot about "closed-minded evolutionists" before heading off to try their shpiel on somebody else.
(R) I wrote a letter to a particular Creationist web site ("Answers in Genesis" - I don't know if you want to print the name on your site, please feel free to delete it if necessary,) regarding teaching Creationism as "science" within our public schools.
(MB) I have no qualms about printing their name. AIG is one of the worst offenders when it comes to ill-informed Creationist nonsense. Any chance to shoot them down or expose them for what they are is most welcome.
(R) I was pleased that this particular organization claimed that it...
"is not directly involved in litigation or legislation to either put creation in public schools or to water down the teaching of evolution. At the same time, we're supportive of some of these efforts and provide advice and counsel as requested."(MB) As an "organization", they might not be directly involved in such things. However, their individual members and contributors are most certainly deeply involved. Also, in seems rather disingenuous for them to say only that they are "supportive of some of these efforts" when the whole purpose of their site is to attack evolution in any way they can.
(R) During the ensuing debate I asked several questions regarding; which creation story should be taught, how do you test the validity of each one, which version of the Genesis origin is more valid and why, etc. In one particular question I asked if the Creationists really felt that our children should be taught in science classes that plants existed on Earth before our sun existed (according to Genesis plants were growing on Earth on the third day while the sun was created on the fourth day,) when we know for a fact that photosynthesis, plant growth, or the existence of any life on Earth, whatsoever, is absolutely impossible without the presence of our yellow sun at its relatively current stage? The answer I got was this;
"There was light, though, before the sun was created. Just as plants are able to survive today under florescent light, there would be no problem for them to survive one day without the sun in the presence of another light source."(MB) This response is pure nonsense. Ask them to explain why grass can't be grown inside of brightly-lit domed sports stadiums and why most house plants won't survive without at least some exposure to sunlight. Their answer also begs the "one literal day" question and the question of whether or not the Earth itself was created before the Sun around which it orbits.
(R) I replied, "In answer to your statement about life existing on Earth before the existence of the sun: First, it's established scientific fact that the sun existed before the Earth - the planets could not have formed without the sun's gravity. Second, plants could not come into being on Earth without the sun's presence to provide warmth enough to keep H2O in it's liquid state and initiate a myriad of other variables necessary for life, cell division, and photosynthesis. To imply otherwise is far outside the conforms of known reality. How do you explain these discrepancies within a science class?"
(MB) Excellent rejoinder! Creationists *hate* being faced with solid facts. This is why they direct their proselytizing towards the scientifically-illiterate masses.
(R) I never received any further reply, the debate was immediately stifled.
(R) This could be chalked up to one random instance, but I've addressed many Creationists who seem more than willing to address my initial questions with biblical quotes and circular logic. But when logical responses to the issues are politely requested I am always either rebuffed with a reply like, "refer to the scriptures," or cut off completely.
(MB) That's because that's all they have to go on. What better proof that Creationism is intellectually empty? What better proof that Creationism is meant to be nothing more than an attempt to push a particular religious view?
(R) Why can't organizations that tout themselves as existing to propagate "the truth" and provide answers to life's questions at least attempt to provide some logical responses to some basic questions.
(MB) The sad part is that they think they *are* doing these things. Of course, to them, "the truth", "answers", and "logic" begin and end with the Bible and nothing else need apply.
(R) The impression I get from Creationists is that if they don't like the kind of questions you ask them (questions that don't immediately point to a theological answer,) you will just be impolitely disregarded and ignored. Thanks for letting me blow off some more steam!
(MB) You're impression is right on the money. Please feel free to vent any of your steam at any time!
Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.5 .......... Last Update: 08 Jan 00