The Creation? It is beyond belief
By Simon Perry
If you need an organisation that appears to be dedicated to the spreading of ignorance then look no further than Answers in Genesis, whose UK offices are in Leicester.
Indoctrinate your children with their teaching materials and you'll be able to eliminate vast swathes of knowledge in geology, biology, astronomy, physics and chemistry.
Hundreds of years of scientific discovery can be eliminated from your child's brain with just a couple of their easy-to-read books or DVDs.
in our summer room we have loads of
sale items alot with at least 75% off
£10 rail too.
shoes and hats reduced too.
tops trousers and skirts from 20% to 50%off
Contact: 0116 3667004
Valid until: Saturday, June 29 2013
Their "educational" material states humans were around at the same time as dinosaurs (they died out more than 60 million years before we were around), and a claim that the Earth is just 6,000 years old (it's actually about 4.5 billion years old).
It's pretty easy to imagine ways that we could prove the theory of evolution isn't true. Just find one fossil – yes, just one, that is clearly out of sequence with evolution.
By dating the rocks in which the fossils are found, scientists have built up a clear picture of the tree of life evolving.
If you can dig up a fossil of some human remains that predate the evolution of primates, you've proven humans couldn't have evolved.
Dig up a primate that predates the evolution of mammals and you've shown that primates could not have evolved.
Find, as J B S Haldane put it, a rabbit in the Precambrian period. Just one will do.
Yet millions of fossils are dug up every year and they all sit perfectly within the tree of evolution.
Nothing excites a scientist more than proving an established theory wrong, and finding that one fossil would likely win the scientist a Nobel Prize.
Yet in the 150 years since Darwin published his theory of evolution, nobody has found one.
It's equally easy to disprove creationism; the favoured idea of Answers in Genesis that we were all made by a perfect, benevolent, omnipotent and intelligent god in our present form about 6,000 years ago.
To disprove this idea, all you need to do is to find one feature of an animal – yes, just one, that, if designed, could only have been designed by a complete idiot.
Here we have thousands of examples. One of my favourite is the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
This is the nerve that connects the brain to the voice box, giving creationists the power to spread their nonsense verbally.
Fish have the same nerve. The fourth vagus nerve in sharks connects the brain to the gills via a direct route.
But, as fish evolved into land mammals, the nerve took on a different purpose, connecting the brain to the voice box.
As we evolved necks, both ends of the nerve needed to be at the top of the neck.
Yet due to its evolutionary roots, the nerve passes down to our heart and back.
In humans, this is a daft enough route to take. But in a giraffe, it is about two unnecessary metres long. If this is design, it is anything but intelligent.
While the theory of evolution was proven conclusively long before Watson and Crick discovered DNA in 1953, this discovery, together with the technology to sequence it, has provided us with huge amounts of further evidence.
The way that DNA copies itself and passes itself on to the next generation perfectly fits our previous understanding of how descent with modification worked.
And when we look at the DNA of different animals, we can see exactly how they fit into the evolutionary tree of life by looking at which genes are the same, and different, from their relatives.
It's often assumed that creationist ideas go only against the theory of evolution, a small area of science, but this is simply not true.
Evolutionary theory is not a small area – it is the underpinning theory of all biology. None of biology makes sense without it and if creationism was true we'd need to go back to the drawing board.
It undermines our knowledge of physics, too. Our understanding of radioactive decay, fundamental in dating fossils, would need to be wrong if the Earth was just 6,000 years old.
Big Bang theory would be out of the window, as would our understanding of how the Solar System was formed.
There would be nothing left of geology, since 99% of geological changes occurred more than 6,000 years ago.
On the Answers in Genesis website, I found an article which absurdly argued that The Grand Canyon was caused not by river erosion but by the receding waters of Noah's biblical flood.
It seems to me this is ignorance on a truly epic scale.
One way Answers in Genesis appear to try to convince their followers is by arguing that they are doing science too.
The website includes an article which argues that the conclusions drawn by creationists vary from those drawn by "Darwinists" only because the two are starting from different presuppositions.
AiG's presupposition is that God's word, from the Bible, is the literal truth.
It is claimed that science, too, has presuppositions and that one of Darwin's presuppositions was his rejection of the Bible.
I think this view is as much nonsense as the Bible itself.
While Darwin's now proven theory of evolution conclusively shows the Genesis chapters of the Bible to be untrue, their falsity wasn't Darwin's starting point for developing the theory.
The Bible wasn't combed for information to be rejected, it was simply not taken into account.
Not allowing unsupported presuppositions or the acceptance of the word of any person or book is a fundamental aspect of science.
Indeed, the motto of the Royal Society, "Nullius in Verba", translates as "Take nobody's word for it".
By breaking this fundamental rule, Answers in Genesis show their methods to be nothing but pseudo-science.
I attended a talk given by Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, when he came to Oadby in 2008.
In his speech, the motivation behind his campaigning became clear. He put forward the view that if the theory of evolution was true then there was no Adam and Eve.
With no Adam and Eve, there can be no original sin.
And with no original sin, there was simply no point in sacrificing Christ.
He seems to believe that if evolution is true then the Christian story makes no sense and the very foundations of Christian faith crumble.
On this final point, I agree.
The views expressed in this column are the author's and are not necessarily the views of the Leicester Mercury.
Comments
by Paul McDorman, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Saturday, April 17 2010, 11:42PM
“I can excuse Simon Perry for not being aware that the examples he gives to prove evolution has already been answered many times. But if he is correct in saying how easy it is to disprove creationism, and that evolution has never been falsified, then why it is so hard for creationists to find evolutionists who will engage in public debates! It wasn¿t always that way. In the United States at least, from 1960 through the early 1990's, evolutionists would generally agree to such debates. But alas, the well has all but dried up because evolutionists discovered that they were losing.
In a letter to the editor of Bioscience, written back in January 1980, (pp. 4-5), Mr. Earl Hanson asked, ¿Why do creationists seem to be the consistent winners in public debates with evolutionists?¿ And David Milne, in the American Biology Teacher (May 1981, p. 244) says of such debates, ¿The odds are heavily in favor of the creationists.¿ In fact, after three decades of debates which almost always resulted in evolutionists being severely trounced, Dr. Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education, finally told her fellow evolutionists to...¿Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ¿defend evolution,¿ please decline.¿ (The Sciences, Jan./Feb. 1996, p. 25). The reason,, Ms. Scott says, is that, ¿...you probably will get beaten.¿
Indeed, that is an amazing confession. But evolutionists have taken Scott¿s words to heart. Instead, most evolutionists have resorted to standing afar off and slinging mud at creationists while insisting to the public that evolution is a fact. Is it possible that such an elite group of highly educated scientists will run away from an opportunity to publically expose creationism for all the fallacies that they attribute to it? Is it maybe an indication that they are scared to debate?
But surely, if truth is on their side they should have nothing to fear, seeing that the majority of people in the world, plus almost all public institutions, are already on their side. Imagine what a few well publicized debates could do for the cause of evolution! If they won, it would likely convince the holdouts and fence-straddlers that evolution is indeed a fact! It would also convince millions of young people who had not yet formed a firm opinion. It would have the potential of becoming the blockbuster sequel to the famous Scopes ¿monkey trial¿ of 1925! In that ¿debate¿, creationism lost a tremendous amount of credibility, and it did more for the cause of evolution than all the combined evolutionary material written up until that time. Think of the opportunity!
It seems obvious that most evolutionists will never debate again as long as they are likely to lose. But I am sure that they would never admit to it. Instead, they have compiled some reasons that will save face. For example, the stated reason that Eugenie Scott gives is, ¿Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences.¿
¿Poppycock!¿ as English creationists like Dr. McIntosh would probably say. Ask any creationist and he would tell you that it would be great to fill up the auditorium with as many evolutionists as possible so that they could see for themselves how weak evolution is. Plus, the Scopes Trial changed many minds.
Another reason given is that public debates are of no value because evolution is a complex subject and the public would not be able to understand the intricacies of the evidences for evolution. In contrast, they say that the creationists¿ arguments are simplistic because they too do not understand evolution. Therefore, the audience would naturally tend to believe the debater that they could more easily understand.
Again, their excuse is nonsensical. Most of the arguments, both pro and con, involves the contradictions that would be observed in nature. And, molecules-to-man evolution is a simple eno”
by David Edwards, Near Liverpool, UK
Wednesday, April 07 2010, 9:46PM
“Oh good. Someone else has expended effort exposing the professional liars for creationism for what they are - professional liars. I know this to be the case because I've been addressing their lies, and those of other creationists, head on for 3 years. Such as the lies AiG disseminated on their website about radiometric dating, which duplicitously traduced the reputation of a Nobel Laureate (taking cynical advantage of the old dictum that one cannot libel the dead), and erected a truly nauseating collection of strawman caricatures of valid science for specious, utterly mendacious apologetic purposes, in a deliberate and wilful attempt to poison people's minds against valid science.
If anyone wishes to know the principle underlying creationism, then all you have to do is pick up one of arch-charlatan Henry Morris' screeds on the subject, where he explicitly states that principle, namely:
"If reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right".
That's creationism in a nutshell. ignore everything that fails to genuflect before a perverse interpretation of 3,000 year old mythology, erect apologetic fabrications to prop up this ideological masturbation fantasy, and pretend that the world revolves around the underlying wishful thinking. Fortunately, scientists operate on the basis of paying attention to reality instead, hence their success with respect to such matters as eliminating smallpox. Compare that with the abject failure of supernaturalism in 1348, when 25 million Europeans died horribly due to the Black Death, and three years' non-stop kissing of the backside of an imaginary magic man did nothing to stop it.
Congratulations to Simon Perry for meeting the big lie that is creationism head on.”
by Gary, Leicester
Wednesday, April 07 2010, 9:26PM
“@Lucy Walsh
I'm not sure it's K Hovind who needs to worry about making a fool of himself. Ever heard of Poe's Law?”
by S I, Leicester
Wednesday, April 07 2010, 9:07PM
“Brilliant piece! I agree with it all. It's just a shame the creationists never listen...”
by Lucy Walsh, Wigston
Wednesday, April 07 2010, 8:44PM
“Brilliant! This is my favorite article Simon has written so far! I agree wholeheartedly. When I read about what creationists believe I can never quite understand if it is that they are totally brainwashed or totally ignorant, or maybe both.
If only they would see the facts of what an amazing world we live in and how that world and the worlds surrounding us operate, maybe then they would realise there really is no need for the supernatural God that they claim is true. As Douglas Adams said "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too"
These people should educate themselves on facts, maybe then they would realise what a wonderous world we live in, a world where everything fits together so beautifully, where all the sciences work together to make our lives here possible. The chance of that happening is so small we should know about it and try to understand how unique we and all that lives on our planet is. It has been a tough ride for all species and to give a mythical God the credit for our exsistence is not only ignorant but in this day and age, laughable. AIG really have got it wrong.
I once got told by a creationist that they pitied me for my interest and awe in evolution and my lack of belief in God. The more I learn about science the more I pity those who spend their lives believing in Intelligent Design. There is so much to learn about in science. Please dont waste time trying to find Answers in Genesis! Read a book about Charles Darwin or a book written by Carl Sagan. Open your mind to the truth!
K Hovind, I hope you are being sarcastic, because if you aren't, you have just made a complete fool of yourself! Natural selection developed the eye. The facts are out there, go and get a book!”
by Tracy King, London, England
Wednesday, April 07 2010, 5:52PM
“It's so rare to see writing of this depth and quality in local press (which is usually concerned with less weighty, more provincial matters). It's refreshing to see major scientific issues being debated here. Bravo once again Simon.”
by Freethinker1, Leicester
Wednesday, April 07 2010, 4:23PM
“@Gary
I am right about everything. I am the fountain of all knowledge. Mwa ha ha!”
by Gary, Leicester
Wednesday, April 07 2010, 3:44PM
“@Freethinker1
You say creationists and scientists are both wrong. Can we be sure that you're right about that?”
by Freethinker1, Leicester
Wednesday, April 07 2010, 3:29PM
“Scientists are just as bad as Creationists - both are stubborn and both are wrong.
The fact is, humans need to bridge the gap between God and Science.
No, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, but after studying the subject of Geology, the error bars in calculating the Earth's age are huge and the science is far, far, far from accurate.
Did you know that human footprints WERE found in the same rock layer as dinosaurs. They were found in America but the evidence was destroyed by the US government becuase it would make the science wrong, and governments cannot afford their science to be wrong because of the millions invested in it. There are photos though, credible photos - google it!
Also, plate tectonics is on its way to be proven wrong. The Earth Expansion theory is gathering pace. The original theory is that the Earth is a constant size and plates move around on its surface. The new theory states that the Earth is growing constantly since its formation, ripping the continents apart with the formation of new oceanic crust. If you were to mention this theory 10 years ago, you would have been killed as a witch - well, not quite, but you catch my drift!
Scientists, historians, egyptologists, everyone in authority has been indoctinated into their chosen subjects and they have lost the ability to think freely and openly. Independant research is the best.
Einstein and Newton were heavily interested in Kabbalah, Gnostic Christianity etc because they WERE free thinking scientists, trying to bridge that gap. Today's scientists are different due being indoctinated into their subjects as opposed to being allowed to open their minds to their subject.
Original Christianity had two sides - Gnostic and Literal. Gnostics knew that the Bible was symbolic so that people could 'become like God.' Jesus was representative, not human, representating the higher aspect of all humans, while Judas represented the lower self. In an original Gnostic Gospel, judas died on the cross, which meant that all humans must destroy their lower, mortal self, to become one with their true spritual self. The Bible, Old and New Testaments is entirely symbolic, not literal and this is what Creatists need to learn!
The Roman Empire under Constantine killed all the Gnostics and used the Literal meaning of the Bible to control the ever-expanding Roman Empire, so the true meaning of Christ was forever lost until a chance discovery of gnostic gospels in Nag Hammadi in Egypt. Google that and learn the truth... No religion is meant to be taken literally, I assure you - it is ALL symbolic.
Scientists or Literalist Religious person - don't live blindly - open your mind.”
by Jesus, Planet Earth
Wednesday, April 07 2010, 3:16PM
“Good article. Don't worry though, you can't argue with a creationist. It is like when I told my sister Santa wasn't real, there was just no reasoning with her. She just didn't want to believe it. When intelligent people grow up they realize the bible is more make believe then the idea of Santa. But according to Darwin's own predictions, the strongest will survive, religious people will eventually die off in society. The world is going this way, people are leaving the church en mass and eventually religion will have no place left in society. Unfortunately I think this is still a long way away. But religion is the biggest single thing holding society back and the only thing that single handily eliminates the possibility of world peace. For religious people reading this, I don't care, you don't have to do your research, believe what you want. But the one thing that you can take from an atheist is to live your life without thinking you have an eternity in heaven. Imagine how different a person would live there life thinking they have hopefully 100 years on earth and that is it, vs a person who thinks they have an eternity in heaven. It is really sad. Religion sucks the life out of people. And we need more people speaking up about it, so good job Simon.”