If you don't have an answer, mine must be right

Great Debates
1

In reading Creation “Science” literature, I’ve noticed a prevalent logical flaw. Creationists attempt to prove their proposition by attacking evolution. They don’t realize that even if evolution is disproven tomorrow, that doesn’t necessarily add one scintilla of evidence to their proposition. Same goes for arguments about the nature of the universe.

Arguments go like this:

A: You’re so big on science - well, how did the universe come into being then?
B: Well, there are some theories, but we really don’t know.
A: AHA! Science can’t explain how the universe came to be - so it’s obvious that God made the universe.

Science is all about recognizing our own ignorance, and working to reduce it. Just because we don’t know the answer now doesn’t mean we won’t discover it. And it certainly doesn’t mean there’s a “god of the gaps.” This attitude is like saying that because the police have no suspects in a bank robbery, God did it.

2

That’s an excellent analogy. You are correct of course, and there is no contrary answer that will have it’s grounds in logic and common sense.

3

Another way they attack evolution is to attack the scientists themselves. In one book I own the author (A REFORMED SCIENTIST!) wastes much paper on ad hominem arguments, assuming that if a scientist changes her/his subject of study/direction of study/general opinions then that scientist must

I’m not saying this well. Here are some examples:

Scientist: I used to study fossil records. Now I study geological changes.
Creationist: Then you must believe that studying fossils is useless. Therefore, evolution doesn’t exist!

Scientist: I was wrong. This particular fossil isn’t the link I thought it was.
Creationist: But if a scientist is fallible, then all science must be fallible, therefore it’s a waste of time to study evolution!

Note that I am not generalising about creationists. “Creationist” in the above dialogues refers only to the author of “Disputing Evolution” or whatever that book was called.

4

Evolution is obviously wrong, because if it weren’t, we wouldn’t have prayer in schools.

5

werent? Though, excactly why would a creationist try to prove creationism? Seems kind of redundant to me.

6

Ten thousand years ago, people didn’t know why rain fell, why people died, why people got sick, why plants grew, why animals ran around doing animal things, why the tides went up and down, what the sun or moon or stars were, or how the universe came into being… the gods controlled all of this.

Two thousand years ago, people didn’t know why rain fell, why the tides went up and down, what the sun or moon or stars were, or how the universe came into being… the gods (or the new God) controlled all of this.

Five hundred years ago, people didn’t know why the tides went up and down, what the sun or moon or stars were, or how the universe came into being… God controlled all of this.

One hundred years ago, people didn’t know what the sun or moon or stars were, or how the universe came into being… God controlled all of this.

Now, people don’t know how the universe came into being… God controls this.

Does anyone sense a pattern?

7

Another interesting point is that when biologists, et al. counter the claims of the Creationists or show the flaws in their logic, the Creationists claim they’re being persecuted because of their religious beliefs or that the Evolutionists are attacking Christianity.