Attenborough on Evolution

Creationist Logic (or lack thereof)

I was browsing Creation Moments for something quick to post, and it didn't take me long to find this gem. It's from an article discussing whether Noah's flood was local or global:

After the Flood, God made a covenant promise with Noah and all mankind that the waters would never again become a flood to destroy all flesh (Gen. 9:11-15). There have been many local floods since, so either God has broken His covenant promise or the Genesis Flood was global.

This lazy, sloppy logic reminds me of CS Lewis's pathetic "trilemma" argument, in which Lewis states that since Jesus claimed to be God, he must either be "Lord, liar or lunatic", then sets out to disprove the latter two options (and fails). Lewis's brand of apologetics is famous for featuring false choices presented as logical arguments, and is easily refuted.

Baraminology

Modern genetics proves conclusively that all life on earth is related to a single ancestor, and provides a remarkably accurate way to determine how closely certain species or animal populations are related to each other. Creationists, however, reject evolution and common descent, which poses problems for them with regards to the classification of life. Baraminology is the ham-fisted, pseudoscientific result. It stems, of course, from the bible:

Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:24

So God created the different kinds of animals, and you'll often hear creationists talking about "kinds" as if it's a definable term. But it's a vague and imprecise distinction, and we really need better definitions than "creeping things" and "beasts". Baraminologists therefore attempt to classify life into kinds, or "baramin", using techniques shamelessly stolen from evolutionary biology. Since God created the "dog" kind, but not individual breeds of dogs (these are man-made by selective breeding, a genuine form of evolution which even the most hardened creationists are forced to admit to), baraminology has to include in its model some genetic mutation and diversification down the generations. Sound familiar? Check out one of their diagrams:


...which bears more than a little resemblance to the evolutionary "tree of life":


From creationwiki:

Genetic and physiological similarities are not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that the genetic similarities are a result of a similar design being used on different "kinds."

This is the same flawed logic as saying "the theory of gravity is rejected because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility of God pushing objects downwards".

While the baraminologist's model is basically evolution-lite, and concedes a lot of ground to the opposition (including the occurence of macroevolution), it does go some way to explaining how Noah fitted all those animals onto his ark, since he would only have needed two of each kind, not two of each species. This is the main reason for the popularity of the word "kinds" among creationists, and is a good demonstration of how these ignorami place a greater importance on their ridiculous and childish stories than on the real world.

You can read more about the fascinating world of baraminology here.

Remarkable Precision

Heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water. . . . this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on the twenty-third of October, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning.

John Lightfoot (Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge), 1859

Creationists That Look Like Apes: George W Bush

In honour of his last day on the job.

Unintelligent Design II: The Panda's Thumb

The Panda's Thumb is a much more serious and scientific blog countering creationism, and I recommend it. It's named after a very famous piece of unintelligent design. A panda's paw consists of five digits each with a claw, similar to a regular bear. But pandas also have a sixth digit, a rudimentary opposably thumb that evolved from a small bone called a radial sesamoid, which in bears and other creatures is only used for strengthening connective tissue. Pandas can press this thumb against their palms and use it to grip bamboo shoots. If the panda had been designed for eating bamboo, it would make much more sense to have a "proper" opposable thumb like the rest of us.


You can read more about the panda's thumb here.

Where Did The Light Come From?

Grigory taught [Smerdyakov] to read and write, and when he was twelve years old, began teaching him the Scriptures. But this teaching came to nothing. At the second or third lesson the boy suddenly grinned.

"What's that for?" asked Grigory, looking at him threateningly from under his spectacles.

"Oh, nothing. God created light on the first day, and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. Where did the light come from on the first day?"

Grigory was thunderstruck. The boy looked sarcastically at his teacher. There was something positively condescending in his expression. Grigory could not restrain himself. "I'll show you where!" he cried and gave the boy a violent slap on the cheek.

The Brothers Karamazov

Slow Evolution and Slow Mindedness

It must be impossible to distill creationist stupidity into a more concise form than the following statement, made by North Carolina resident Joel Fanti:

If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?

Joel Fanti

Via PZ.

Creationists That Look Like Apes: Ben Stein

Where Did The Earth's Water Come From?

If you thought the email in my previous post was stupid, wait until you read this letter, published in the Dothan Eagle and brought to the blogosphere's attention by Pharyngula's PZ Myers. Here's an excerpt:

Of all the mysteries surrounding evolution, the one that is most baffling to the evolutionists, is "water." Where did all the oceans come from?

As explained on the National Geographic program, it came from a massive collision in space. As the Earth was cooling from the Big Bang, it was approached by a stray planet that was teeming with water. It collided with Earth, spilled its water onto the Earth, then careened off into space.

Talk about fairy tales. By the way, where did the stray planet get its water?

Come on evolutionists, surely you can develop a more plausible explanation that can be easier to swallow. Until then, I accept the Bible's answer. After all, the 4,000-year-old book has a perfect track record.

But here's the rub: the bible doesn't actually provide an answer to where the Earth's water came from. Here's what it says:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Genesis 1:1-7

So it seems that the water was already there to begin with, before god even showed up.