15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Back in 2002, Scientific American ran this hold-no-punches piece “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense” to provide a concise rebuttal against the arguments of the people who continue to favour mythology over reason.

Why am I harping on this theme again? Someone emailed me a link to this site from the American-import-cum-Australian Christian evangelicals at Hillsong Church:

Many eminent scientists in different fields are currently saying that the complexity and balance of the universe points to intelligent design. This has re-opened the debate about whether God and science should be studied in the same classroom. The answer comes down to our understanding of science. If science is the search for truth, as some scientists argue, then God should be mentioned in any classroom that pursues it.

Much of the debate about the origin of life and the universe is speculation. It comes down to a question of belief.

At Hillsong Church we believe that God created the world. In other words, the universe is a product of intelligent design. We also believe that science is part of humanity’s search for truth, and it is therefore important for science curricula to include all valid viewpoints of the origins of life and the universe, including intelligent design.

* Comments from Ps Brian Houston, Senior Pastor Hillsong Church & National President AOG in Australia.

This is the nonsense these people are filling children’s minds with. Someone needs to defend the kids against having their minds tarnished with this kind of appalling rubbish. Outwardly they present the image of being nice, toothy people who just want to do good works (okay, except for Brian’s father Frank, who held senior positions in the church, but was forced to resign in 2000 “following exposure of his homosexual paedophile activities.”) However they are really subverting young minds, turning them away from reason and rational thinking – and as far as I’m concerned, that is the definition of evil – almost as evil as the paedophilia.

Let’s examine the website quote.

“Many eminent scientists” – who? Name them.

“If science is the search for truth, as some scientists argue” – What do the other scientists argue? That science is the search for falsehoods? This suggests that science could possibly be something other than the search for objective knowledge which is the very definition of the word – “then God should be mentioned in any classroom that pursues it.” – Why? Science uses evidence to support theories for how the universe works. God is a theory completely unsupported by evidence. It is completely unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It has no place in the science classroom.

“Much of the debate about the origin of life and the universe is speculation. It comes down to a question of belief.” – Rubbish. Trying to understand the origin of life has nothing to do with belief. There are a range of scientific theories at present. On the other hand, the origin of the universe, aka “the big bang”, is supported by overwhelming evidence. As we discussed here, the Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded for that evidence just last year.

“it is therefore important for science curricula to include all valid viewpoints of the origins of life and the universe, including intelligent design.” – again, intelligent design has no relationship to science. It denies facts and ignores the evidence, as several court cases in the Unites States have now determined.

I know we’re unlikely to pass a law preventing people like this from polluting the minds of children with this rubbish – in fact, I’d probably be the first to protect their right to free speech (a right, I’m continually reminded, we don’t actually have in Australia, as we don’t have a Bill of Rights), but I hope we are not far from the day when making these kinds of statements in public will be similar to advocating the genocide of the Jews or suggesting blacks are an inferior species. It needs to become completely socially unacceptable to pollute young minds with the idea that denying evidence is somehow valid and rational.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *