Edit: Since some people are unclear what kind of Creationism I'm speaking about. I am talking about the Christian creation account. The reason for
this is because the believers of that are the primary ones who constantly attack Evolution. I thought this would have been clear based on the OP, but
I guess I was wrong. The term Creationism describes the Christian account as well. By no means am I trying to refute that the universe was created.
Just the biblical account of it.
Time and again I see Creationists create threads trying to debunk Evolution and that Evolution takes more faith to believe in than Creationism. Well I
decided all is fair and if Creationism really does take less faith than Evolution then it should be fair game to be analyzed for veracity.
Creationists claim that Creationism is a valid theory or something. Therefore Creationists, instead of attacking Evolution, defend your "theory" like
we are always forced to do about Evolution.
First we start out with proof. In the Social Sciences sources must be
to help verify their veracity.
In the social sciences, triangulation is often used to indicate that two (or more) methods are used in a study in order to check the results. "The
concept of triangulation is borrowed from navigational and land surveying techniques that determine a single point in space with the convergence of
measurements taken from two other distinct points." The idea is that one can be more confident with a result if different methods lead to the same
Triangulation is a powerful technique that facilitates validation of data through cross verification from two or more sources. In particular, it
refers to the application and combination of several research methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon.
Ok so let's look for the proof of Creationism. Well the only account of how it happened is in the bible. The account is described in Genesis 1 and 2
(click on the arrow at the bottom of the screen to get
to the next chapter of Genesis). So we have this story (albeit a very short story that doesn't give much to description). So where is the rest of the
proof for this account? Also since the account is so short, we cannot be sure if this is meant to be taken literally or figuratively (old earth vs.
young earth). Compared to this Evolution has so much documented proof for it. Here is just five of
Now to verify this account, scientists would need to decide on which is true, young earth or old earth. For old earth, you could easily fit modern
science like evolution and the abiogenesis hypothesis as the how; though you'd need to look at the world with confirmation bias to have the sciences
match up with this account. For the young earth, it is a little harder. We'd need actual physical proof that God poofed all of life onto the planet
simultaneously. This proof doesn't exist
, heck we cannot even prove God exists let alone life suddenly appearing on the planet at the same
time. In fact all evidence suggests that life developed over a period of time, whether that is through Evolution or not isn't part of this thread so I
won't mention it. Ok, so strike one against Creationism is that the proof is desperately lacking.
But proof isn't the only problem with this account. There is the story itself that is flawed. In the first chapter of Genesis, God makes all of life
on the planet then creates man and woman. In the second chapter, God creates man first, then the animals, then woman.
The two contradictory creation accounts.
These are two blatant contradictions within the story. I'd say that it is within the first few chapters, but the story is so short that those two
chapters are pretty much the entirety of it. You would think if the Bible is the divine word of God that God would be able to describe to man a
correct version of events and being that the story is so short, He should be able to remember the order of events that HE, Himself did to create
Third, we speak about the bible itself. The thing going for the bible is that it is supposedly the divine words of God. Of course the only proof of
this being true is also within the bible. This is a circular reasoning fallacy
this claim cannot be taken at face value. Also keep in mind that no matter if the bible is the divine word of God or whatever, it was most definitely
written by men. Men are not infallible, and the part of the bible that the Creation account shows up was passed down through the generations orally
for a LONG time before being written down. A simple game of telephone shows that a simple sentence cannot survive intact being passed from person to
person in just one room, let alone telling it to their kids and them retelling it to their kids and so on. Wouldn't it therefore be HIGHLY likely that
the account that is described in the bible is embellished or certain details left out? This could certainly explain why there are two blatant
contradictions in the story.
So that is three strikes against the Creation account, and so as to not Gish Gallop, I feel like that is enough to show that the Creation account
certainly takes more faith to believe than Evolutionary theory.
edit on 5-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)
on 5-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)