Bikerman
Creationist Claims
For the benefit of readers, I have compiled a list of some of the more common creationist claims made in forums like this, together with links or information which debunks the specific claim.
Most of these claims are advanced by those who believe in a 'young earth' - ie that the Earth was created a few thousand yrs ago according to Genesis - but they also occasionally surface from others.
This will save me having to repeat myself over and over in threads where these allegations/claims are frequently made. I will add to the list as specific claims arise that qualify as 'oft repeated creationist propaganda/misrepresentation'.
For a comprehensive resource, dealing with all major creationist/ID claims, click HERE
1. A large number of scientists question evolution
Around 5% of US scientists & engineers are creationists (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). This includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). If we count only those working in the relevant fields - earth and life sciences - there are about 480,000 scientists in the US, of whom around 700 consider "creation-science" (or ID) to be a valid theory (Robinson 1995).
In other words less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe that creationism is valid. Note that this is just for the United States, which has more creationists than any other western democracy. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than 0.1% - one tenth of 1 percent.
Regarding scientists as a whole, the major problem is that this normally includes engineers, IT experts and other non-science workers, so it is difficult to be accurate. What can be said with total confidence is that scientists tend to be less religious than the population as a whole - usually significantly less.
The following stats are for the US - the most religious country in the 'developed west'.
2. Intelligent Design is not religious and/or ID is scientific.
1. ID is not science. It is entirely religious in origin and outlook. The ID movement is modern and was started in the 1980s by Phillip Johnson (a lawyer, not a scientist).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement
2. On the claim that ID is not religious, This is a lie designed to hide the creationist origins of the movement and thus allow ID to be introduced into the school curriculum without falling foul of the US Constitution which maintains a separation of state and religion. One of the founders of the movement - Phillip Johnson - said the following
3. Evolution is just a theory.
No, evolution is a theory, not 'just' a theory. The claim reveals the ignorance of the claimant about the meaning of the word 'theory' in science. It does not mean 'best guess' or 'approximation', it means the best available model which is consistent with observations/measurements.
Gravitation is a theory, all knowledge in science is expressed as theory - it does not imply, in any way, that the theory concerned is dubious, inaccurate or wrong. Scientific theory only becomes so when it has undergone rigorous attempts to destroy it by other scientists. This process continues throughout the lifetime of any theory, so a theory which survives for any period of time is very likely to be extremely solidly based and certainly the best currently available explanation. Any predictions of the theory can be understood to be valid, since they will have been tested many many times by scientists looking for the slightest deviation or anomoly. It is important to realise that science progresses by changing existing theory. In very rare circumstances the existing theory might be found to be simply wrong - but I cannot honestly think of such an occasion in the last century. What nearly always happens is that it is found to be incomplete, or part of a broader theory, and later scientists add to the theory, changing or discarding anything which can be improved or refuted. Thus the current modern evolutionary synthesis (the rather pompous name given to the theory as it currently stands) looks very different to Darwin's original proposal in 'On the Origin of Species'. The essential mechanism of natural selection, however, is still at the heart of evolutionary theory and is not seriously in doubt.
The following video is a presentation of the overwhelming evidence for evolution, given by a biologist working in the field - Dr. Jerry Coin.
4. Scientists cannot prove that God does not exist.
This compounds basic ignorance of science with a dishonest appeal to fallacy of false choice/false dilemma (ie if you cannot disprove X then X must be true).
Science does not deal with proof - mathematics is the correct discpline for proofs. Scence deals with theories, always!
The silliness of this whole line of argument is probably best illustrated by reference to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. IPU is both Pink and Invisible at the same time. Because this is impossible, this proves she must be divine. Since nobody can prove that she does not exist, then it follows that she DOES exist.
QED.
5. Science is not common-sense and is therefore questionable.
This is not so much a statement as a general theme used by creationists. They play on the fact that the 'man in the street' doesn't understand relativity, or quantum physics, and use this to assert that such things are just invention, or wild guesses.
The best way to illustrate how wrong this is by providing the comments of a Physicist (De-Grasse Tyson) explaining why science has not been 'common-sense' for the last century.
Click HERE to load audio
Below are a series of YouTube videos which debunk the claims of creationists in some detail.
Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
Why do people laugh at creationists?
For the benefit of readers, I have compiled a list of some of the more common creationist claims made in forums like this, together with links or information which debunks the specific claim.
Most of these claims are advanced by those who believe in a 'young earth' - ie that the Earth was created a few thousand yrs ago according to Genesis - but they also occasionally surface from others.
This will save me having to repeat myself over and over in threads where these allegations/claims are frequently made. I will add to the list as specific claims arise that qualify as 'oft repeated creationist propaganda/misrepresentation'.
For a comprehensive resource, dealing with all major creationist/ID claims, click HERE
1. A large number of scientists question evolution
Around 5% of US scientists & engineers are creationists (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). This includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). If we count only those working in the relevant fields - earth and life sciences - there are about 480,000 scientists in the US, of whom around 700 consider "creation-science" (or ID) to be a valid theory (Robinson 1995).
In other words less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe that creationism is valid. Note that this is just for the United States, which has more creationists than any other western democracy. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than 0.1% - one tenth of 1 percent.
Regarding scientists as a whole, the major problem is that this normally includes engineers, IT experts and other non-science workers, so it is difficult to be accurate. What can be said with total confidence is that scientists tend to be less religious than the population as a whole - usually significantly less.
The following stats are for the US - the most religious country in the 'developed west'.
2. Intelligent Design is not religious and/or ID is scientific.
1. ID is not science. It is entirely religious in origin and outlook. The ID movement is modern and was started in the 1980s by Phillip Johnson (a lawyer, not a scientist).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement
2. On the claim that ID is not religious, This is a lie designed to hide the creationist origins of the movement and thus allow ID to be introduced into the school curriculum without falling foul of the US Constitution which maintains a separation of state and religion. One of the founders of the movement - Phillip Johnson - said the following
| Quote: |
| There's a difference of opinion about how important this debate [advocating intelligent design] is. What I always say is that it's not just scientific theory. The question is best understood as: Is God real or imaginary?
(Phillip Johnson, "The Search for Intelligent Design in the Universe", Silicon Valley Magazine, 9 Jan. 2000.) |
3. Evolution is just a theory.
No, evolution is a theory, not 'just' a theory. The claim reveals the ignorance of the claimant about the meaning of the word 'theory' in science. It does not mean 'best guess' or 'approximation', it means the best available model which is consistent with observations/measurements.
Gravitation is a theory, all knowledge in science is expressed as theory - it does not imply, in any way, that the theory concerned is dubious, inaccurate or wrong. Scientific theory only becomes so when it has undergone rigorous attempts to destroy it by other scientists. This process continues throughout the lifetime of any theory, so a theory which survives for any period of time is very likely to be extremely solidly based and certainly the best currently available explanation. Any predictions of the theory can be understood to be valid, since they will have been tested many many times by scientists looking for the slightest deviation or anomoly. It is important to realise that science progresses by changing existing theory. In very rare circumstances the existing theory might be found to be simply wrong - but I cannot honestly think of such an occasion in the last century. What nearly always happens is that it is found to be incomplete, or part of a broader theory, and later scientists add to the theory, changing or discarding anything which can be improved or refuted. Thus the current modern evolutionary synthesis (the rather pompous name given to the theory as it currently stands) looks very different to Darwin's original proposal in 'On the Origin of Species'. The essential mechanism of natural selection, however, is still at the heart of evolutionary theory and is not seriously in doubt.
The following video is a presentation of the overwhelming evidence for evolution, given by a biologist working in the field - Dr. Jerry Coin.
4. Scientists cannot prove that God does not exist.
This compounds basic ignorance of science with a dishonest appeal to fallacy of false choice/false dilemma (ie if you cannot disprove X then X must be true).
Science does not deal with proof - mathematics is the correct discpline for proofs. Scence deals with theories, always!
The silliness of this whole line of argument is probably best illustrated by reference to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. IPU is both Pink and Invisible at the same time. Because this is impossible, this proves she must be divine. Since nobody can prove that she does not exist, then it follows that she DOES exist.
QED.
5. Science is not common-sense and is therefore questionable.
This is not so much a statement as a general theme used by creationists. They play on the fact that the 'man in the street' doesn't understand relativity, or quantum physics, and use this to assert that such things are just invention, or wild guesses.
The best way to illustrate how wrong this is by providing the comments of a Physicist (De-Grasse Tyson) explaining why science has not been 'common-sense' for the last century.
Click HERE to load audio
Below are a series of YouTube videos which debunk the claims of creationists in some detail.
Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
Why do people laugh at creationists?
