Don't You Have Anything Positive To Say?

[Mr. Neil]

I've been largely ignoring creationists for a while now. I don't mean to drip with arrogance when I say this, but I see no reason to grant them any attention anymore, aside from perhaps gathering a quick chuckle.

 

In the past, I would waste a lot of time trying to refute creationist arguments, but now I don't even see why I took the effort. Basically, I've come to the conclusion that creationism refutes itself simply by having no affirmative arguments in its favor.

 

Simply glancing over a "scientific paper" printed by a creationist, they never have anything positive or enlightening to bring to the table. There are no discoveries, no theories, and no testing. Creationists simply don't do science, and it shows in their literature.

 

It's important to note that creationism isn't just a critical watch dog point-of-view on evolution. Creationism necessarily also carries affirmative baggage, which says that the Bible is the correct account of Earth history and all the evidence in the rock strata therefore supports creation. But this heirarchy of assumptions is circular, and the creationists have never made any serious attempts at providing evidence for itself that wasn't essentially piggybacking an evolution argument.

 

I have yet to read a single creationist paper that ever actually attempted to postulate anything unique unto itself. Everything they assert is post hoc in relation to what actual scientific papers have to say about biology. Creationists don't know where to find evidence for creation, and they make absolutely no effort to form any theories about it. For example, they have no real way to affirm whether or not the geologic stratigraphy actually supports creation; they just say that it does. In doing so, they blatantly attempt to hijack and dismantle evidence of the contrary.

 

In short, they can't even make an argument for creation without first drawing attention to evolution and then bashing it as hard as they can. And if any of you creationist fucks think I'm making a bold claim, then I challenge you to make an affirmative theory about creation that doesn't rest on attacking the contrary! You can't do it! The reason you can't is because all apologetic arguments appeal to ignorance. I say to you, the emperor has no clothes.

 

If you really want to see the depth to which creationism relies on negative appeals, just do a quick breeze through some of the article titles of creationist articles and publications, and you'll see that never once attempt to affirm their position. Not once. Not ever. It's all bashing evolution.

 

You'll see titles like "Bird Evolution Flies Out The Window" and "The Fossils Say No". "Another Problem For Darwinism". Answers in Genesis is full of articles like this; articles that are just total shit, because they have nothing to do with actually supporting the affirmative position of creation! Hmm... I guess you can say that creation is full of shit!

 

But imagine if real science did this. Imagine if every article and book about evolution had titles like, "The Fossils Put Scripture To Shame" or "Breaking News: Elderly Men Cannot Build Giant Boats". Those aren't scientific titles! There isn't a biologist in the world who thinks that his position on evolution will be strengthened by attacking the Bible, because they know such arguments are irrelevent and non-affirming. So why, then, do the creationists rely on this sort of appeal?

 

People who spend all their time writing refutations miss the point of scientific exchange. Yes, criticism is important, but it bears repeating that creationists aren't just critics. They have taken the affirmative position of the creation story in the Bible, and yet they have not supplied one solid argument in their favor. I guess one can take this to mean that despite all their words, they really have nothing to say.

 

What can truly be said about "Answers In Genesis" is that there are none.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi, Neil. Great rant. You oughtta print it as a tract and stand outside Bob Jones University handing it out!

 

I think there are no scientific answers in Genesis. Unfortunately, there's a lot of money to be made from Genesis.

[Thurisaz]

I think there are no scientific answers in Genesis. Unfortunately, there's a lot of money to be made from Genesis.

 

Straight to the point.

 

And, Neil, if I wouldn't consider it my duty (to a degree) to oppose the morontheists, I guess I'd pretty much be where you are too - at the point of pathetic ignorance (well, coupled with mocking laughter ).

[lothartx]

I agree with ficino. It's more like a money making machine than science. You develop a template to write to and then simply change blurbage. There are lot of words but no real substance. I've read a few creationist "papers" and have been subject to many an argument based on "Creation Science" books. It's empty of any real data, IMO. Creationism is full of criticism but provides no real alternate answers other than bible B.S.

 

I think I could make a killing by making up a book full religous catch phrases and thinly vieled prostelyzing. I'd add some catchy Xtian title attacking evolution and sit back and watch the fools money roll into the bank.

 

But, I more honest the average creationist writer....

[fortunehooks]

what can i say, i am so happy neil came back. great writing, as usual. the point is well taken, the cretins never have any of their own points to postulate, so they just bash the opposite.

[scitsofreaky]

Basically, I've come to the conclusion that creationism refutes itself simply by having no affirmative arguments in its favor.

I wouldn't say that it refutes itself because there is nothing to refute. It offers nothing. In the Dover trial (I think), the judge found that they, the cretins, didn't want ID taught in school, but the controversy. Why? Because there is no ID theory to teach.

However, I do watch some IDiot combating cites, like panda's thumb and talkreason/origins, but I do this because it is a great opportunity to learn about evolution.

 

Ah, ain't it nice to preach to the chior?

[white_raven23]

Mr Neil,

 

I think we ought to start beating fundies at their own game. Turn this into a "chain" letter. Make the "consequences" for not sending it on to at least 10 people funny and ridiculous.

 

If we could get Heimdall to do the same with some of his material, we could get something good going.

 

The internet has potential. We need to use it. Earlier this week, I saw the link regarding Pirate Day. As I understand it, that was created fairly "recently".

 

Well, The other day I overheard my boss talking to someone on the phone about Pirate Day. He was having a lot of fun doing pirate-ese on the phone with that person. My boss embraced the idea.

 

He's not the most internet savvy person in the world, and he has some pretty right wing sensibilities. But he knew about Talk Like a Pirate Day.

 

The Christians have happily sent their sugary spoooge via e-mail for a long time. Porn ads make it into your Inbox no matter HOW many variations you try to filter out.

 

We have real, worthwhile information and thought inspiring ideas......but somehow we are too "good" to "lower" ourselves to "that level"?

 

Screw the "high road"! Christians happily send spooge click-clickity-click and still claim the "high road" too.

[Mr. Neil]

I wouldn't say that it refutes itself because there is nothing to refute. It offers nothing.

Well yes, that's true. That's kinda what I was getting at.

 

My point is that their whole attempt at an affirmative point-of-view is immediately defeated by their inability to actually present one. All they can present is a denial of other affirmatives. They have to appeal to our affirmativs to create the superficial appearance of having one of their own.

 

Thus, my theory, which is based on the assumption that all apologetic arguments appeal to ignorance, is that the creationists should be completely incapable of registering an affirmative argument. If my theory is true, then the creationist will be unable to say anything at all, unless it appeals to an alleged failure of evolution or any other theory of science.

 

It's kind of like building a structure upon the very foundation that one intends to destroy. If one takes away our affirmatives, which is the body of scientific knowledge, then creationism loses its grip and collapses.

 

A methodology that exists purely on attacking the contrary cannot survive if it has nothing to attack.

[scitsofreaky]

Well yes, that's true. That's kinda what I was getting at.

I know, I just wanted to rant myself, albeit a rather short rant, and I just used that as a way in.

If my theory is true, then the creationist will be unable to say anything at all, unless it appeals to an alleged failure of evolution or any other theory of science.

I would say your theory is about as air-tight as evolution

I think I could make a killing by making up a book full religous catch phrases and thinly vieled prostelyzing. I'd add some catchy Xtian title attacking evolution and sit back and watch the fools money roll into the bank.

Who do you think you are, Anne Coulter?

I also agree that, at least for some (most?) it is all about the money. But maybe that's just wishful thinking and they really are that ignorant.

[Mr. Neil]

I would say your theory is about as air-tight as evolution

Careful! Creationists may try to suggest irony in that statement.

 

Then again, they won't be able to demonstrate such irony. They'll just end up burning themselves, I guess.

[scitsofreaky]

I would say your theory is about as air-tight as evolution

Careful! Creationists may try to suggest irony in that statement.

 

Then again, they won't be able to demonstrate such irony. They'll just end up burning themselves, I guess.

Irony? That sounds like women's work