I'm just jumping in here, so pardon me if I repeat anything already covered here. I read quite a few posts, but they were getting off topic (as
threads of this nature always
do), so I will just state my stance on the topic presented in the OP.
It is undeniable that the legacy of Creationism is anti-intellectualism. To believe the myth of creation and dispell all the science that proves it
wrong is the definition of anti-intellectualism. Perhaps evolution cannot be proven, which science never claimed it as a fact in the first place, it
does prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the creation story is just that, a story. It was a simple story created by a primitive bronze age people
to explain the begining of time. To cling to that story in the modern age is just plain silly. To cling to this obvious myth makes no more sense to
me than an adult still believing in Santa Claus. I have also seen that creationist's knowledge of evolution comes almost exclusively from
creationist sources. Certainly no bias there.
But let's put evolution aside and go to geology. We can accurately calculate how long it has taken for Pangea to spead to the current continental
configuration we see today. We can do this by measuring the continental drift. Pangea began to separate 250 million years ago. This disproves the
creationist timeline. Source.
Now let's move along to cosmology. We know from the spreading of the known universe and cosmic background radiation (the echo of the Big Bang) that
the universe as we know it began around 13.73 billion years ago, plus or minus .12 billion years. This disproves the creationist timeline.
Now let's move along to astronomy. We can very precisely calculate the distance between stars, and their distance from earth. NGC 4414, a spiral
galaxy in the constellation Coma Berenices is 62 million light years distant from Earth, and yet the light from this galaxy which has spent 62 million
years traveling across space can be seen by the Hubble telescope. This disproves the creationist timeline.
Abiogenesis readily explains how life originated on Earth and has been duplicated in the laboratory. This disproves the creationist need for a Divine
Creator to explain life.
Next I would point out that I have yet to see one
person from the Jewish faith defending the Creation myth, and by all rights, it's
story. Now if the originators of the myth don't put any creadence into the myth, why do so many non-Jews feel the need to defend it and
advocate it's propogation in place of hard science?
I would say to the hardcore creationists that science has not tried to or in any way has disproved the presence of the Divine. In fact, if anything
it points to a being so much more complex and amazing than the one described in any holy book that it boggles the mind. I would say to any
creationists reading this post to take the ATS motto to heart, Deny Ignorance and educate yourself to science, and you will discover a Divine Being
that the Ancients could not even fathom. I would also say that if you decline, it is based on fear of what you will discover, and that just may
reflect on how weak your faith is to begin with. My faith is so much stronger in the Divine because of what science has discovered and I don't
require an ancient text to solidify it.