Sunday, 4 March 2012

About this blog

I have some background in biology and an enduring interest in science.  On the other hand, I have published no research nor am I deeply knowledgable in many areas of biology.  You may ask why I am writing blog posts on a subject that I have just admitted I don't have much to add.  My goal here is to pick creation science's low-hanging fruit as a service to both creationists and to people uncertain about the subject.

I think that I will be preforming a valuable service for many creationists.  To illustrate this, let me describe a short conversation I had with a creationist co-worker.
Me: The problem is, creationist arguments never change.  Creationists just keep re-using old arguments.
Co-worker: (A few moments taken to control his temper) That is not true.  No way.  That is not true.
And yet, he did.  He sent me a set of arguments that he had collected and among was Glacier Girl, an old argument that has long been refuted.

Creationism may have good arguments in its favor.  I may even have seen some.  But when I can easily see and explain why a number of arguments are wrong, I do not feel I need to rebut every argument.

As an aside, what percentage of creationist claims do you feel I need to rebut when given a pile of them?  I mean, if I can show that the first two out of twenty are clearly wrong, do you understand that I do not feel I need to read the rest?  Or, if not the first two, two out of the group?  Or three?   Five?

There comes a point where someone who has received an email of creationist claims can reasonably stop responding.  This is true whether the person is an evolutionist or not.  If a devout creationist were to receive such an email and find that some or many of the claims are false, they might feel as many evolutionists do.  To wit, "If your side is correct and you have truth on your side, then why use these ancient dis-credited claims".

My co-worker wasn't deliberately lying when he sent me his list of claims.  Of that I am nearly certain.  And yet, I am nearly certain that the people who made these claims either were lying or are being dishonest now in letting them remain in the public eye.

Creationists: if you want to convert me, you need to avoid the long refuted claims found on this blog.  These are the claims that I found easiest to rebut.  If creationists have solid evidence for creation, then it is being hidden by these deceptive claims.

Fence-sitters: if you find these claims being used, you should understand that the person using them is most likely uneducated or unaware of the truth. That person may not be lying to you but you I would like you to be thinking, "If s/he uses these deceptive claims, why should I believe anything else s/he says."

No comments:

Post a Comment