Counter-Creationism and Intellectual Superiority
It seems as though our atheist friends possess a real tone of intellectual superiority. They never try to talk to us creationists, they only ever talk down to us. The latest example of snobbery is in the form of Mark Issak’s Counter-Creationism Handbook, which I picked up from the library this week. I really haven’t read a detailed critique of creationism and intelligent design from the scientific viewpoint. I’m definitely not reading one right now.
The snobbery, narcissism, and alleged scientific, academic, and intellectual superiority are all present in the author’s tone. So far, he has taken great pains to attack creationism rather than to defend evolution and scientific naturalism. Normally, I wouldn’t take that so personally, but he actually says in the introduction that that is what he sought to do by writing the book.
An example of the snobbery is evident in the very organization of the book. Isaak numbers his chapters and subheadings based on the McBee Keysort System for Mechanically Sorting Folklore Data. He says that this is appropriate since creationism is nothing more than folklore. Yet, I thought that one of his goals was to write to creationists to show us the flaws in our arguments. It seems doing something like this would offend many people, the same way Bill Nye offended people when he said that the Bible was false based only on the fact that the moon refracts light from the sun.
All said, the book has created (pardon the pun) a desire in me to read more about evolution and scientific naturalism. Not because I believe in it, mind you, but because I read in the book itself that no Christian who speaks against evolution has ever studied it, and that fact is obvious by the arguments that are used against evolution.
So that makes me curious: What are we missing out on? Is there something to evolution, or is it so much babble and double talk? As in the Bill Nye example, stating the God created the two lights, the greater (the sun) and the lesser (the moon) in no way contradicts that the moon refracts light from the sun. The text only says that God put them there. The science merely shows us the mechanics of the light itself–on which the Bible is silent.
So, if God formed mankind special out of the soil–then that is true. Perhaps, then, there are intermediate steps (shown by evolution) that are not discussed by the Bible since the Bible isn’t pretending to be a science textbook. There is truth in it, certainly, and we can’t ignore the truth it contains. But understanding the mechanics of the nature that God created isn’t sinful, and certainly brings Him glory.
This isn’t an endorsement of evolution. This is a sincere believer wondering what the natural world can teach him about his Creator.
from Schmitz Blitz: schmitzblitz.wordpress.com
According to the NYT, Richard Dawkins was misled into giving an interview for the new documentary on the oppressive close mindedness of those who think lessons on creationism don’t belong in the science classroom. The documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is hosted by Ben Stein, and from the looks of the trailer, it Michael Moore-esque.
The distortion of scientific research is not a new tactic by those on the right. James Dobson and Paul Cameron have by widely criticized by the scientific community for twisting research on gay families to fit into their anti-gay ideologies.
That the distortion of scientific research is an essential part of the religious right’s strategy of promoting creationism in the public schools and their anti gay agenda. Since there is no legitimate scientific research supporting their side, they must fabricate it. I think it’s shameful that they manipulate science in order to undermine it.
I actually take the above comment as a compliment. Elizabeth obviously sees my blog as a way to boost her own readership, and so she has reproduced, in its entirety, one of her own posts. As a favor to her, I will help her readership by dismantling the logic behind this post, which of course betrays the fact that Elizabeth (can I call you Liz?) has surface level knowledge of Scripture at best. That statement is being kind, actually.
[...] Posted on September 28, 2007 by fitnessfortheoccasion There’s an interesting post by Cory over at Josiah Concept Ministries. In the post and the ensuing thread, we can see an old [...]
[...] Darwin was such a reasonable man Cory Tucholski at the Josiah Concept Ministries has a post from yesterday that I thought was intriguing as I was scanning the Internet in my [...]
I prefer to go by Elizabeth.
Here’s a link to my response to your attempt to reveal my ignorance of the Scripture
http://schmitzblitz.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/lesbianism-and-the-book-of-ruth/
As I said over on Haws’ blog, I don’t know how creationists could possibly accuse their opponents of “talking down” to them, when the arrogance they display is almost beyond belief.
Most creationists I’ve debated never even bother to put a few seconds into learning the subjects they are criticizing: why do they need to after all? They know from the start that they are right no matter WHAT the evidence is, and so they really, at bottom, rarely show any respect for the idea of having consistent well-evidenced arguments. The way creationists argue science is probably a lot like you feel non-believers who haven’t studied the bible argue biblical literalism.
I spend a considerable amount of time and effort explaining my reasoning and pointing to evidence for my position: this is how people that debate show respect… and the response I get back is usually a quick “nyah nyah, god says yer wrong” or simply dropping that subject and jumping to new claims, that then demand their OWN extended efforts at debunking, which ALSO won’t have any effect.
>>It seems as though our atheist friends possess a
>>real tone of intellectual superiority. They never try to
>>talk to us creationists, they only ever talk down to us.
>>I read in the book itself that no Christian who
>>speaks against evolution has ever studied it, and
>>that fact is obvious by the arguments that are used
>>against evolution.
>>So that makes me curious: What are we missing
>>out on? Is there something to evolution, or is it so
>>much babble and double talk?
Cory,
I have in fact found that Creationists who make scientific arguments against evolution generally do so from a position of scientific ignorance. And I am talking about my brethren in Christ. They just do not understand science or the scientific method by and large. They can parrot back the words I have found, but when you read their arguments, the practical application is generally lacking.
It just so happens that I posted over a week ago an example where a Christian faltered in his application of scientific principles. You can read about it: http://geocreationism.com/2007/09/21/zircons-revisited/. Please note this is just one example. I can point you at other websites with more scholarly examples than my own.
Reading some more of The Counter-Creationism Handbook, I’m actually engrossed in it now. I find it fascinating. I’m at the section now that is really starting to make me see that creationists are far haughtier than their evolutionist counterparts. I’ve heard it repeatedly claimed by creationists that no one has ever refuted Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe. The book is systematically destroying all of Behe’s arguments.
I’m really starting to see why creationism isn’t science. I’m much more open to evolutionary arguments now having read this book.