posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 08:05 PM
Interesting topic, and some good points made.
I don't subscribe to evlolutionary theory in terms of the broad "frogs to princes" origin of species, but I think it's important to note (and many
Creationists fail to make this distinction) that there are elements of evolutionary theory that aren't only beyond dispute, but are self-evident.
As far as I've read, no reputable Creationist ever disputes the validity of the theory behind natural selection. This is a clearly substantiated and
evidence-based conclusion. We know from observation that speciation occurs based on environmental factors, for example.
However, I think that many Creationists are so hell-bent (ironic term, isn't it?) on trying to disprove evolution that they jump on the bandwagon of
anything that seems to support such an argument. This is an ideal example. While, yes, Darwin's theories (and his books) led to eugenics and many
false conclusions, this "tainted by association" approach doesn't actually help in any way whatsoever. It disproves nothing, and really misses the
I'm all for argument.
I'd call myself a literal, 6-day Creationist. I believe in a young earth, scarred by a series of catastrophic events as described in the Bible.
However, I also believe that if you're going to make an argument against something, you'd better get your facts straight, and you'd better actually
find a valid method of deconstructing that argument and finding its flaws.
...this is not an example of such an approach.
It's no wonder Creationists get mocked.