A blogger styling himself Sirius Knotts (if that’s his real name, then he is awesome) left a comment on the Hovind Scale main post a while back. Today I followed it to his blog. I almost regret it now. Almost.
In this post, he makes the claim that the real reason we “evolutionists” don’t like Kent Hovind is that he is able to trounce us in debate after debate (I choked a little when I wrote those words, it’s just too funny), despite not holding an accredited degree. Well, he’s half right. The really real reason we don’t like Hovind is that he is charismatic enough to convince the credulous that he trounces real scientists in debate after debate, despite doing nothing of the sort. He is also a liar.
But enough of that. I didn’t begin this post to deconstruct Mr. Knotts’ nonsense; plenty of commenters have already done so. (In fact, I was amused to find not a single favorable comment on theh posts I read.) I wanted to highlight his blog to illustrate some idle speculation of mine on the title question: why do creationists fight for creationism? I’ve already intimated why I think it’s important to fight for evolution, so this is the other side of the coin.
Two things are obvious about Young Earth Creationists (YEC). One is that they arrive at the YEC viewpoint not by careful consideration of science, but by first declaring that the Bible is the inerrant, literal word of God. Indeed, it has to be this way, since all the evidence from science runs directly counter to the YEC perspective. The other obvious characteristic of YECs is that they feel their worldview threatened by the historical sciences, by evolution, abiogenesis, historical geology, cosmology, etc.
They feel threatened because they believe that the universe and all in it was created for our sole use. They feel threatened because they believe that humans were made in God’s own image. They feel threatened because evolutionary theory, and the other sciences listed above, run counter to those ideas. The believe all of the above, yet many of them have the gall to call supporters of legitimate science arrogant!
The fact is that the universe revealed by science, is vast, wonderful, and largely indifferent to human life. The Earth we live on has supported uncounted different species of organisms in its long history, and all of them arose the same way, including us. When we are gone, which may not take too much longer, it will all go on as it did when we were here. We are not the centerpiece of creation.
We live in an enormous universe, populated with untold wonders, of which we are an infinitesimal part. Creationists prefer to live in a small universe, made entirely for the benefit of one species. Why limit yourself to a universe so tiny, so bereft of imagination, when science has revealed something so much more wonderful?
Tags: common descent, Creationism, darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Kent Hovind, young earth creationism
Allusions of Grandeur 
June 11, 2008 at 10:07 am |
Like me
June 11, 2008 at 10:25 am |
Hi Mike! Your link doesn’t seem to work, would you mind posting the url so I can fix it? I couldn’t find any relevant post on your blog (which is awesome.)
June 11, 2008 at 12:27 pm |
Darwinism and its ageless past is not upheld by any scientific data but, rather by the innoculative, “absolute” dating systems. Who would question an absolute, meaning, perfect, without a chance of being incorrect?
The Quest for Right series did and you will be amazed at the findings: the term absolute, as pertaining to the dating systems, has been duly labeled a “scurrilous invective.” In concert, the dating systems have been scathed by the determination that they represent the “greatest hoax to have ever been perpetuated upon an unsuspecting public.” As previously exposed, the obstructionist union thought to establish absolute geological ages by applying the tenets of quantum mysticism; hence, a federation of mystics was formed. By this guise, the federation attempted to persuade the innocents within the classrooms that biblical histories are patently false, period. Considering the foregoing, the reader should not be overly surprised to learn that the absolute dating ruse incorporates several dominos previously toppled:
1. The incorrect architecture of the charge.
2. Electronic interpretation.
3. Analysis of the hyperfine structure (the game of spectrograph chance).
4. Isotopic composition and crustal percentage mishaps.
5. Avogadro’s defunct number.
6. Rutherford and Soddy’s infamous experiment in which helium atoms were supposedly captured in the vacuum of the outer bottle (the radon gas experiment). The misinterpretation of relative data inferred that an alpha particle (energy cell) is an helium atom. Hint of chaos ahead: One prominent technique for determining the absolute age of the earth incorporates the number of so-called “daughter” or residual helium atoms in the specimen tested.
7. Fanciful negative beta particle decay.
8. The erroneous contention that a crustal radioisometric must, at some point and time, discharge either an alpha or beta particle and transmute into a daughter product.
9. Mathematical elucidation incorporating the nonvalues associated with atomic and molecular weights and masses.
In course, the mass spectrograph, the instrument by which scientists supposedly scored isotopic percentages and, thereby, established exact atomic and molecular weights, will be entertained as to its true analytical value in determining geological values. Be advised that in the world of quantum mischief there is seldom a reflection of the true, but rather a reversed image: black is white and white is black. And so it is with the mass spectrograph: although the mass spectrograph has the remarkable ability to focus an ion beam, it is also an insidious device in that it has been utilized to challenge the legitimacy of biblical histories (insidious—”working harmfully in a subtle manner; intending to entrap”). The sinister aspect will be exposed in Volume 3 of The Quest for Right. http://questforright.com
June 11, 2008 at 1:10 pm |
Soulbiscuit: Blast and damn and piffle on WordPress.
http://mek1980.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/spanking-sirius-again/
And thanks for the compliment 🙂
cdavidparsons: That was the longest post saying absolutely nothing that I’ve ever seen. Well done. You should work for a church.
June 11, 2008 at 1:56 pm |
Thanks Mike! I fixed the link in your first comment. There was quite a shouting match between you guys on that post, wasn’t there?
And yes, that’s Mr. Parsons third off-topic screed/book plug on my blog. I’m tiring of it, but I don’t want to edit them down because they’re so funny.
You’ve got a problem with Avogadro’s number now, do you Mr. Parsons? Do you have any particular reason for trying to take science apart at the seams? For that matter, any evidence?
June 11, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
Absolutely!
Creationists often say that scientific explanations about life and the universe subtract from the magnificence of it. The thinking seems to be that if it’s not magical, it can’t be awe-inspiring. I disagree. The more I’ve allowed myself to learn (since abandoning my own creationist beliefs a few years back) the more magnificent it has become to me.
Very nice post.
June 12, 2008 at 8:08 pm |
Hello Mr. Oops! [Mike is known by another, more memorable name for reasons which become apparent upon reading the following two posts: http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/evidence-of-something/ & http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/the-habits-of-highly-ineffective-anti-creationist-fundamentalists/ ]
And nice to see you standin’ by yer man again, Lottie. I’m sure it must be love and not some random chemical reaction stimulating irrational emotional responses. Even if you ARE both just raving psychopaths with not an ounce of care for what constitutes a rational argument.
You’ll note that Mr. Oops! ability to deconstruct an argument are legend in his own mind [and I daresy Lottie’s]. His modus operandi hasn’t changed much, if at all. He initially responded to my post on the faith of Richard Dawkins by quoting me over and over and then inserting the word Oops! [with a link to God knows where] after one. I’m still not quite sure whether I was supposed to take him seriously. His most recent attempts at “deconstruction” take much the same tack. He quotes me [and I am quotable, I suppose] and then he makes some junior high prat call, the sort of slams one might appreciate in ill-informed immaturity. I have the suspicion that somewhere in the middle of this hubris might be an actual argument or two I might have addressed, but I’m hard-pressed to see why I or anyone else should bother wading through such poorly written snubbery. It would be like digging through elephant dung because there might be a steak in there somewhere.
Of course, I’m sure the choir had plenty of amens for the prat.
Soulbiscuit,
I see you’re using the Men in White Coats defense, the assumption [rammed down your throats by a neo-Marxist educational system] that we discovered Darwinism by science. The sad fact is Darwin did a fair amount of speculating in Origins. The fossil record went against his theory, so he decided it was nororiously imperfect. The complexity of life itself cried out against naturalism, so he imagineered a way it might have happened by natural means [which is not the same thing as proving a thing did in fact happen as we’ve speculated]. As Karl Popper noted, Darwinism is not a scientific theory but rather a metaphysical research program in which valid theories may be tested. Evolution, like Creationism, is a belief. A belief supported [like Creationism] by a weight of evidences and arguments, but a belief nonetheless. I simply find my beliefs more reasonable!
But let me get to the bottom line.
Creationists argue for creationism not because we feel threatened. We feel outraged! The lie of evolution is being indoctrinated into successive generations through an antitheist public education system.
We argue for creationism because it’s true.
Whether you believe it or not.
–Sirius Knott
June 12, 2008 at 9:56 pm |
I’m not really interested in the personal beef between you and Mike.
Not sure how you roll on your blog, but I don’t go in for personal attacks. The next one will be deleted. If you’ve got a beef with an argument raised, then state it, and go from there.
I found the post you’re talking about neither poorly written nor snubbish, but I’m not interested in dragging that drama here. His arguments were sound. Yours are not. That’s enough for me.
Oh my, another personal attack? Is that par for the course with you?
You may find this interesting: it’s not an assumption. It’s also not neo-Marxist (the tinfoil hat must be on tight.) It’s a scientific theory based on sound scientific evidence. I know this because I have read extensively on evolution, I hold a degree in science and I’m completing a degree in evolution, and I understand the evidence. I understand fully how the conclusion of common descent follows from the evidence, and how creationism is intellectually bankrupt.
That’s true. He acknowledged fully when he was speculating. Some of his speculations have been borne out, and some have been refuted, but the broad outline of the theory of evolution by natural selection has been upheld, repeatedly and without fail, for 150 years.
You creationists really need to get over Darwin. Evolutionary theory has moved on a long way since his time.
No it didn’t. It supprts his theory in great detail, as you would know if you studied the science honestly and without bias.
It is imperfect. Despite that fact, it still supports common descent in remarkable detail. We continue to find the fossils we expect to find in the age of rock in which we expect to find them, as predicted by evolutionary theory.
Have you actually read The Origin, Mr. Knotts? He presented meticulous evidence for his theory.
And David Hume obliterated the Watchmaker Argument three hundred years ago. What’s your excuse?
Bullshit. Give me a quote or retract this statement.
You’ll have to elaborate on that sentence. Evolution is falsifiable, and creationism is not. Hence evolution is a scientific theory, and creationism is not.
Evolution is also a fact, because it has been observed in the laboratory and in the field.
That’s false as well. Evolution is in fact supported by the evidence, but your particular brand of Young Earth Creationism is not. The world is not 6,000 years old, there was never a global flood, and the Bible is not literal truth. As long as you are handicapped by these notions you will never understand legitimate science.
You’re going to have to explain how public education is antitheist. It is secular, which means that the students rights to their own religious beliefs are protected. To put it more simply, students are protected, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, or Atheist, from being subjected to wacko religious nonsense with no basis in reality.
Of course you feel threatened! Nobody fights long and protracted battles to counter a lie that threatens no harm. Evolution (which is not a lie) threatens the very foundation of your worldview, however. As you see it, if evolution accurately describes the origin and history of biological diversity (and it does), then your viewpoint based on scriptural inerrancy evaporates.
But it’s not. You believe in creationism not because of scientific evidence, but because of your presupposition that the Bible is literal truth. If you were not weighed down by that indefensible notion, you would reject YEC in an instant.
Right back at you buddy.
Science starts with the fact and draws conclusions based on them. Creationism begins with the conclusion, and twists the data to support it (and fails.)
June 20, 2008 at 8:40 pm |
[EDIT by soulbist: I told Mr. Knotts that I would tolerate no more personal attacks and insults. I’m making good on that promise. When I’ve finished this edit, you will see insults replaced by this: [insult].]
soulbiscuit,
I don’t care what you think of me or my estimation of [insult], Lottie or even yourself! Your outbursts about insult and personal attack [like the wounded protests I’ve endured from those mentioned] is purely hypocritical.
As for the Karl Popper quote:
“I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme” – Unended Quest [his autobiography]
You seem to be under the delusion that making sure students are protected from “being subjected to wacko religious nonsense with no basis in reality” somehow proves that schools are not antitheistic. Know you not that secular is the antithesis of the sacred? It’s also hopelessly naive of you to say schools are not antitheistic BUT THEN tell me they teach something that “threatens the very foundation of [my] worldview.” Are you always accustomed to such doubletalk?
You also have me wrong on another count. I did turn my back on Christendom at one point – and it was because of the evolutionist dogma I was fed in public schools. I spent nigh a decade doing as I bloody well pleased, but when someone challenged me to examine the evidence again, I found Darwinism bankrupt. I have a copy of Origins on my shelf [Incidentally, it is shelved under science fiction] and, far from proving his case, his book is purest speculation built upon an argument from ignorance [or did you miss those golden phrases like “given our present knowledge, we can’t say it’s impossible that…”??] I also re-examined proofs for the Resurrection and found the evidence overwhelming for a literal event. http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/resurrection-apologetics/
Even if you’ve “moved beyond Darwin,” you’ve not moved far. All you’ve done is specify a possible mechanism [mutations and recombination – which fall hopelessly short of expectations] but it is still based on speculation that small changes over time means common descent. And since you’ve no time machine, you must presume a great deal.
Creationism and Darwinism are on equal footing, [insult]. Both begin with presuppositions [naturalism or the existence of God/uniformitarianism or catastrophism] and build a reasonable weight of evidences and arguments in support of them.
Incidentally, tell me why Darwinists bother to argue? http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/why-darwinists-argue/
–Sirius Knotts
June 20, 2008 at 11:45 pm |
I didn’t ask for your opinion, I just said I wouldn’t tolerate personal attacks on my blog. If you think I’ve made a personal attack, please let me know, and I’ll retract it.
Thanks for the quote! I think I’ll have to read the surrounding words and try to get some context. If he really holds that evolutionary theory is not testable, then he’s wrong. Simple enough.
Secular does not mean antireligious. It means that religion is excluded from the public sphere. Such exclusion actually protects religious freedom, because there is no danger of one religion taking over and prohibiting all the others.
Do you believe in religious freedom, Mr. Knotts?
As for doubletalk, I said that evolution threatens your worldview, not religion in general. Your worldview holds that God created the universe exactly as it appears now 6,000 years ago. This is demonstrably false. However, plenty of people are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with legitimate science.
Why can’t you?
Sorry to cut you mid-sentence, but this stuck in my craw. If the purpose of your atheism was to do as you “bloody well pleased,” then your reason for being atheist is very different from mine. I’m an atheist simply because I see no reason for imagining that a God exists. I don’t consider this a license for unbridled hedonism.
Which Origins were reading? Darwin went to great pains to provide evidence for his thesis. That’s why it was so long!
He was being polite. He was famous for being overly polite, just as he was famous for being overly meticulous.
I may examine that later, but apologetics doesn’t hold much interest for me. It certainly isn’t relevant to a discussion of evolution or creationism.
It’s not enough to simply assert this. You have to demonstrate how natural selection cannot account for biological diversity, or at least direct me to some evidence.
Natural selection does not provide evidence for common descent. The evidence for common descent comes from fossils, comparative morphology, and molecular analysis.
That’s true, both begin with presuppositions. Science (including evolution) begins with the presupposition that the universe is subject to laws that hold throughout time and space, such that we may discover those laws through experiment. Creationism begins with the presupposition that God created the universe.
Of course, only creationism has as a presupposition the very thesis it’s trying to prove. Not a very impressive “theory.”
I’ll check out this post and let you know what I think there. It’s not really relevant to the present discussion, agreed?
I really don’t see anything in any of your comments that runs counter to what I’ve proposed in this post, Mr. Knotts.
July 11, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
Good post. I touched on a little bit of this sort of thing myself on my most recent post at my own blog.
And my GOSH, C David Parsons gets around. Does this person never tire of spamming?
July 12, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
soul[insult],
You’re actually quite wrong. I’ll elucidate:
You stated that ONLY creationism has as its thesis the presupposition its trying to prove. Um… Are you quite sure you know what you’re talking about? Perhaps something got lost in translation. Perhaps you were over eager. Are you saying that Darwinism does NOT have as its thesis the presupposition it’s trying to prove [that natural selection, mutations and whatever other purely natural mechanism resulted in the diversity of life we see presently and in the fossil record by COMMON DESCENT and certainly NOT by any special actor acts of creation]?
ah, sweet hypocrisy.
–Sirius Knott
July 13, 2008 at 5:13 am |
Cute. You really are incapable of holding a rational argument without resorting to childish namecalling, aren´t you?
The following paragraph elucidates nothing. It simply restates your point, that evolutionary theory is somehow “faith-based” like creationism. You provide no evidence to support that position, so I have no reason to take it seriously.
Yes. That is what I´m saying.
Prove me wrong.
July 13, 2008 at 5:58 am |
Hehehe… He does keep on trying, doesn’t he? [insult]
[edit by soulbiscuit]Sorry Mike, I have to confess to thinking that was pretty funny, but I said I wouldn’t allow insults on my blog comments, and I’d better be consistent with that.
I do look forward to seeing him try to defend his assertions with an actual argument, aside from “everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.”