Every once in a while, when I have time, I visit fellow bloggers’ sites for inspiration, fun and a little give-and-take. Over at Aetiology, Tara Smith’s remarks about the Creation Museum attracted a couple of creationists, whose comments were so annoying that I felt I had to respond.

Y’see, creation “science” just doesn’t run roughshod over accepted biological and evolutionary theory, it also attempts to rewrite the laws of physics to make them conform to a universe that’s only a few thousand years old.

Worse yet, the kind of creationists who comment on science blogs seem to be abysmally ignorant of even basic physics, so it’s no wonder they cannot understand why creationism is just so wrong.

[Note to students: If you ever get involved in debates about creationism, make sure you understand your physics first. Numbers don’t lie.]

Then there are those who figure that throwing Bible verses at us non-creationists will convince us that we are wrong and they are right. They make no attempt to debate the issues; they figure Biblical injunctions are sufficient arguments.

The trouble is, when you try to debate these people at a more logical level, the attempt usually fails. They are so devoted to creationism that they rarely look at the logical fallacies that undergird their belief system. Still, I try; it’s the teacher in me.

Example number 1: RayJ (aka Absolute aka Ray Jennings) quoted 2 Peter 3, an epistle that tells the faithful to ignore the “scoffers” who doubt the Messiah has come. It refers to God creating the world out of water, the Great Flood, and the fire that will consume the universe in the End Times.

Curiously, RayJ omits a verse (3:8) that says, “But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.” Since creationists insist that God created everything in just six days, 2 Peter 3:8 would seem to throw a wrench in their argument that those days were literally six 24-hour periods.

When I suggested RayJ/Absolute might try to indulge in some dialogue and not quote-mine Scripture, his response was to insert in all-caps two pithy remarks among the verses.

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

THIS IS WHAT THE UNIFORMITARIANS (THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN GUYS) SAY….THINGS NOW ARE LIKE THEY’VE ALWAYS BEEN

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
THE FLOOD MENTIONED HERE

7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Uniformitarian geology suggests that the Earth’s surface has been shaped by the kind of events we typically see now: wind, water, seismic activity and so on. I doubt Peter had geologic activity in mind when he wrote that sentence, though. He wanted the faithful to understand that the times have changed, with the arrival of the Messiah. Creationists like RayJ use the verse out of context to support their version of geological activity (which includes the Great Flood, by the way).

The other comment, after 3:6 is just plain obvious and adds nothing to the discussion. I am waiting to see if he has an explanation for why he left off 3:8.

In another comments, RayJ lists the attractions around Cincinnati and suggests the Creation Museum would be cheaper to visit, and offers the following verse:

why is the earth placed perfectly where it is and if anything happened we would be destroyed. No scientist can tell you who the lawgiver is. They search space for millions of miles hope to find life.
Isaiah45:18 written long ago says
For this is what the LORD says–
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited–
he says:
“I am the LORD,
and there is no other.
ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG visit the web site

Now, this comment is worth parsing, since it brings out a few important issues. One is the convenient location (and size) of the Earth around the Sun, which enables water to exist abundantly in liquid form. Creationists and Intelligent Design supporters use this fact as evidence that an intelligent force/Creator/God set the Earth where it is so that we could live here. (In less religious settings, this concept is also known as the anthropic principle, which suggests that physical constants have just the right values to permit the development of intelligent life — human, that is.) If Earth were closer, higher surface temperatures might have prevented the development of large oceans, leaving us with a more arid planet. If the Earth were further away, it might be too cold for large bodies of liquid water to exist. In any event, different initial conditions would have led to different biological outcomes, from the evolutionary standpoint anyway.

That we exist at all is not evidence that God exists. Rather like the koan about the tree falling in the woods, His existence would not depend on ours (unless you argue that God is an invention of the human psyche). Likewise, the fact that Earth happens to have lots of water does not provide evidence of God’s existence either. Water exists elsewhere in the Solar System, a concept not even mentioned in Genesis. Titan has oceans of methane and ammonia, a really non-Biblical principle.

“If anything happened we would be destroyed.” RayJ has not explained what he means by this statement, which fails to support creationism in the least. If an asteroid hit Earth, whether it was divinely created or not, it would be bad for us.

“No scientist can tell you who the lawgiver is.” True, nor would they bother looking. Science is not looking for a Creator. Religion does that. Why do creationists never get the distinction? Theologians have grappled for centuries with the idea that science can prove the existence of God. They generally conclude that science cannot.

The quote from Isaiah merely reiterates Genesis, and suggests that God created Earth so that we would inhabit it, so that it would not be empty. Again, this verse is a weak argument for creationism, since it ignores the rather obvious fact that there are eight other planets around the Sun that are known to be (so far) devoid of life. If God created a world for humans to populate, why not one for Martians and Venusians, too?

So, RayJ is one of those fellows who quotes Scripture as an authoritative source to support creationism — a circular argument, since Creation Science (and the Museum) rely on Biblical “evidence” to shape their “scientific” conclusions.

Example number 2: BryanE is much more verbose and willing to get past Biblical quotations, but manages to parrot the same arguments for Creation Science that Answers in Genesis offers. BryanE has probably had a born-again experience, as he refers to a conversion event, and his newfound faith obscures his logic. He also mangles physics and astronomy pretty badly in the process.

BryanE commented quite a bit, so I will just choose a few select arguments he offers. They are pretty typical of creationists.

• The religious argument: The Bible is the inerrant Word of God and must be read literally. To interpret Scripture otherwise means your “faith is false.”� — Millions of Christians (and Jews and Muslims) would disagree, so they must all be terribly wrong. This argument is not scientific at all, and I suppose is intended to scare us non-believers into changing our ways.
• The stubborn pride argument: Humans who question the Bible and the existence of God are letting their pride stand in the way of truth. If they set aside their pride, they will see creationism is correct. — I would say if creationists would set aside their stubborn inability to think outside their religious box, they might see the falsehoods contained in creationism.
• The mangled astronomy argument: Refer to discrepant behaviors in the Solar System as evidence that astrophysics is incorrect, that the Solar System was not formed from a spinning cloud of dust and gas, suggesting that God just made things that way. The retrograde rotation of Venus on its axis, and the nearly 90-degree axial tilt of Uranus are the usual discrepancies invoked. — BryanE manages to botch this argument, referring to “astrological evolution theory” and the scientifically accepted age of the solar system as 2 billion years, instead of the correct value of 4.6 By. He also misinterprets the slow recession of the Moon from the Earth as proof that planetary science must be wrong. His figures are unfortunately just plain wrong.
• The “we’re real scientists” argument. “Evolutionists” are close-minded and preach their science like it was a (state-supported) religion. Those who question evolution are ridiculed. Meanwhile, creationists are open-minded, since they question evolution, and welcome inquiring minds. — This argument betrays so many misconceptions that it’s hard to know where to begin to unravel it. Science depends on evidence, and there is considerable evidence that evolution and the scientifically accepted ages of the universe and Earth are right on the money. “Evolutionists” might be close-minded (and snarky) to arguments that ignore the predominant evidence against creationism. The preaching comment of course results from the happy fact that evolution, and not creationism or intelligent design, is taught in schools. Meanwhile, creationists like BryanE fail to recognize that non-believers have valid arguments. They shut out anti-creationism arguments because it challenges their faith and belief. Rather than welcoming questioning minds, creationists try to scare the bejesus out of them by hinting at God’s wrath.

You cannot successfully argue against creationism with believers because of the religion thing. If they cannot get past the notion that only a literal interpretation of Scripture is the mark of a true Christian, they will never question it for fear of sinning. The best you can hope for is to convince the fence-sitters, the folks who visit websites where evolution and creationism are debated, and hope they will see that real science is correct and Genesis is at best an allegory.