Creationism and Logic-Part 2
In Part 1 we went over a portion of the painful to read creationist bullshit titled ““Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism in Not Logically Sound”. We saw the author commit the following fallacies: argument from ignornance, straw man and non sequitur. Today I continue dissecting this article to point out other areas where this guy’s brain fails him. I do not pretend to be able to capture them all.
Even if all the planets somehow formed themselves, all somehow staying in perfect orbit and possessing gravity, even take for granted that all the chemicals needed for life were so how there as well, by sheer happenstance, would it then be possible for billions of species to spontaneously come about, each with a male and female of each kind so that they could exist in the long run?
Ok first of all who told him that billions of species “spontaneously” came about? What part of evolving over millions and millions of years does this guy not understand? What’s spontaneous about that? Furthermore, is it true that all species “have a male and a female so they could exist in the long run”? Has he never heard of asexual reproduction? And if by “billions of species” he didn’t really mean all species, then what the hell is his argument? God created most species a certain way, but some others a different way? Why the hell would he do that? Let me explain it to you, you little confused pal, having evolved from a common ancestor all species have inherited certain traits that they share. Sexual reproduction has proven to be the most successful way of passing genetic information along, and that is why most species you’re referring to have a male and a female. Oh, and I assume he’s simply talking about animals when he says “species” because I don’t know if he really wants to extend his “argument” to plants and such, because then he would really be in trouble!
Even if this were possible, would the simplest of animals have been able to survive were it missing even one essential organ? Would human beings survive if one organ or cavity was missing or displaced, even after somehow being otherwise perfectly formed with no designer?
Where do you start here? The misconceptions are simply overwhelming. Evolution does not predict the instantaneous appearance of whole organs. Who ever said that the parent would have no eyes and the child would be born with two perfectly developed eyes? This is an embarrassing misunderstanding of the thing he’s trying to argue against. Organs don’t show up in young animals out of nowhere, ready to be used for the new purpose. This is another straw man attack. He’s twisting the theory of evolution into something he can easily ridicule. And then he falls under the old “what good is a half an eye/wing/heart” argument which has been made countless times and debunked countless times, so I won’t even dignify it with an answer. He himself is a prime example of what good a half a brain is!
The contention of atheists, that life simply adapted to the conditions it found itself in is also irrational, as were this to be the case we’d have animals that could solely subsist on snow and ice in some regions.
This is just stupid, pure and simple! First of all plenty of religious evolutionary biologists agree that life forms adapt to their environment. This is not an atheist thing, it’s a biology thing. I guess in this guy’s mind every evolutionary biologist must be an atheist, which just goes to prove my half a brain comment above. Evolution does not say that animals will adapt to EVERY condition of nature. They do die out when it is impossible for them to adapt, that’s why you don’t find animals that solely exist on snow or ice. I guess the caloric intake from snow and ice cannot support a large animal, but I don’t want to get technical because it is not my place to get technical. I am not a biologist!
Of the many philosophic and scientific arguments brought forth for the existence of the Divine, three stand out. The anthropic argument contends that the universe is too complex to have no Creator. This is in effect the central point of this column, although explained in a more common manner. The cosmological argument maintains that finite matter (original matter, which was clearly finite) cannot create a universe that is greater than itself. Especially compelling is the teleological argument, that the existence of a Creator can be seen from the fact that the universe works in perfect harmony, as would a giant machine. Gravity, orbits, chemical atmospheres and all other ingredients needed for life to exist come together in unison to allow such existence to happen. An enormous machine that works like clockwork needs to have a Creator.
The first argument is a clear argument from ignorance. It says “The universe is too complex. I am not smart enough to understand it. I cannot answer why or how it works. However, I must have an answer, because I am not mature enough to accept that I don’t know. Open the door for the Sky Daddy”. Of course this is complete and utter bullshit. It is not an explanation, it is a childish attempt to deal with one’s lack of knowledge and security by making up a big guy in the sky. For little kids this big guy is called Santa Claus. For this guy it is god! The second one makes no sense to me, I don’t know what he means by original matter, those words are completely foreign to me so I cannot give an opinion. The third one is just an argument from incredulity, it’s too beautiful, to preciese. I cannot believe it evolved. What all these arguments show is simply that this person is arbitrarily choosing the answer that makes him feel better, more comfortable. He’s not looking for the truth, he’s looking for a nice answer. Well pal, reality is not always nice.
The atheist would also do well to read Anthony Flew’s latest book, “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.” For decades, Flew was one of the leading proponents of atheism. But he eventually decided to give everything a second look and found that all he’d believed and so vociferously advocated for so long was wrong. Upon real analysis, he found that there is, in fact, proof of the Divine.
I don’t know the real story regarding Anthony Flew, but even if it had happened the way this cretin says, what does that mean? Why should we accept that he was wrong the first time around, when he was an atheist, and right the second time around? What if it was the other way around? What if he’d been right all along and made a mistake at the very end? What if he’d been wrong both times? Here this guy commits yet another fallacy, the argument from authority. At best the above, if true, shows that one guy got dupped latter in life, or that he simply changed his mind, nothing else. What about all the christians who gave up religion and became atheists? It is exactly the same thing in reverse.
Just because someone recants does not mean that they made the right choice, regardless who that someone is.
Unfortunately, there is more nonsense coming from this fool. It seems there may be need for a Part 3 to cover all his stupidity. Please bear with me.
2 Comments »