Feedback and Notes

Latest Activity

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

Using Creationism methodologies to prove evolution. Another blow for ID/Creationism???

I have to admit I think this is a very cool approach to beat creationists at their own game.


Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?


Matt Walker | 16:38 UK time, Tuesday, 5 July 2011

Bird-hipped dinosaurs (image: Natural History Museum, London)

Bird-hipped dinosaurs (image: Natural History Museum, London)

It is one of the great questions of the past 150 years.

Did God or evolution drive the emergence of life in all its resplendent variety?

This blog, the US education system, and even American politics have to a degree all become dominated by the debate at various times, which goes to the heart of our world view and our ideas of where we, and all other forms of life, came from.

But I’ve just come across an intriguing piece of research that may, to coin a phrase, put an evolutionary cat among the believing flock of creation scientists, many of whom believe in the literal account of Genesis.

One scientist has decided to use creation science to test the validity of evolution.

Because, he says, if it turns out that creation science proves evolution, then by its own logic, it will have to reject its own canon of research that previously denied it.

It’s a clever idea, because it once again puts evidence, rather than faith, at the centre of the debate...




...Will any creationists consider the idea that even some of their own evidence-gathering techniques may point to the veracity of evolution?


Views: 70

Replies to This Discussion

I had read Senter's paper last year. It's clever to use their methods against them but unfortunately it will not do a thing to convince creationists because they only pretend to use "science" or mathematical models; their premise is the groups of species (or "baramins") were created independently, and their premise is NOT based on data or previous evidence, it is based on religious faith. They go about it the wrong way: first they decide how things must have happened, then they look for "evidence" that fits their preconception and throw away the rest. They will throw away Dr. Senter's work, too, even if it uses their method.
Well, I think more important than convincing creationists, it makes it harder for them to pass this (creationism/ID) off as a provable scientific theory.
For sure. We must take every opportunity to highlight why there is no science in "creation science". Plus I've actually met a few ex-creationists online, whose eyes had been open by getting a science education or simply reading about science. Every little bit helps.
Not that this is a competition, but I can top that (so note that if this WERE a competition, I'd be winning!. ;)  I have THREE very close friends (one of the three I consider my best friend) who are all former creationists/evangelists/Bible literalists turned Atheists...well, I may have to take that back, I think one identifies as Agnostic. :D  One (my best friend) is now a tenured geology professor at San Diego Mesa College, another is an English lecturer at the American Language Institute located at San Diego State Univ where he teaches English to foreign students (whose 1st language is not English) and last is a programmer/software developer.  I have a fourth friend who is a mom & local stage actor and I know she comes from a Bible literalist background in Abilene, TX but I don't know if she was ever truly a creationist herself and I'm not sure what her exact thoughts are on "god."  I'm a Humanist/Unitarian so I get to meet several people with stories like that. And look at Europe...they're not nearly as crazy as "United Statesians. despite a very theologically strict history -- granted not PURITAN strict, but strict, nonetheless."
Wow. All good stories, Paul!

I concur, I noticed this many years ago when I was debating it with a creationist. That fact stood out they start with a finished premise then fit the facts into it then reject all else they cannot fit the premise namely because it actually refutes their premise. 

He was even kind enough to send me a video that purportedly showed how the grand canyon was created after the so called deluge! They used compacted sand to be the model for the rocks the Colorado river flowed over because they stated that because of the flood all the rocks were soft because they had been laid  by the flood alone!

As you know I ain't no scientist but understand when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes! That is exactly what they were doing! 

Indeed, every effort must be made to discredit these deluded I.D. cretins that are trying their worst to infiltrate the science curriculum in our public schools.


© 2017   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service