The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Argument against creationism

One of my most recent articles on creationism: http://www.rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=3756#comm29238

After the annoying threats and troll commenters were done insulting me over my anti creationist rhetoric, I received an interesting comment:

"Creationists need to consider that the bible is not a scientific textbook. If it was then genesis chapter one wouldn't contradict chapter two. In chapter one, humans are created last after the plants and animals, in chapter two humans are created before the plants and animals."

I thought that people might like to discuss my reply:

The lack of consitency in any holy book of any religion suggests that it is written as a phylosophical perspective rather than a scientific deduction, thus, and as you suggest, it should never be interpreted literally. There is no evidence to suggest a creator but much to back up evolution. Sure, we still need to work on it and we will, as we evolve our ability and excitement to add on our predecessors' conclusions does also evolve.

Not understanding is forgivable, but simply saying "god did it" is a stab against humanity!

Tags: atheism, creationism, science

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jaume on October 28, 2009 at 3:00am

Don't lose your time. There's no valid argument against creationism from a creationist point of view. If I were one, I would retort it's yet another proof that God is all-powerful, since He's not limited by the constraints of time and causality as we frail humans are.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jake Farr-Wharton on October 28, 2009 at 5:30pm

Fair point.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tarquin St John Sh'gn'sty on October 28, 2009 at 8:05pm

I've never really understood the whole creationist/ID issue;it's a religious doctrine, to be put in the same box as Flat earthers and Holocaust deniers. Evolution is fact.There is not now and has never been a debate about what is to me a non-issue.

That the literalists seem unable to grasp the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is their problem. I decline to argue with such people, just as I don't bother trying to hold a conversation with a goldfish.