It’s a while since I last posted. I’m getting older and I guess I am slowing down.
I participate in several online forums, where creationists are showing up. The way that they argue is somewhat interesting, even if depressing.
In general
Creationists are not all alike. Most Christians are probably creationists of some kind. But the creationists who show up on Internet forums are not typical.
One version of creationism would be for the creationist to say that God created the world that we see as we look around. So if the world that we see appears to be 4 billion years old, then God created the world 4 billion years ago. And if the world that we see appears to use evolution to maintain biodiversity, then God created evolution as a way of sustaining the biosphere.
I do not have any serious arguments with that kind of creationist. As an agnostic, I don’t know whether or not there is a God behind all that we see. And it really doesn’t matter to the science.
Anti-evolutionists
The anti-evolutionists are the problematic creationists.
Of course some people may have doubts about evolution. It can be difficult to follow the science and the evidence, so I’m not at all concerned about people who are having doubts. It is certainly possible to live a reasonably normal life while doubting evolution.
The problem is not with the doubters. It is with those who actively oppose evolution.
What I find odd about these anti-evolution creationists, is that they are so certain they are right. They have no actual evidence. But they do make arguments as to why they believe in a special creation. If you point out a flaw in their argument, they may try a different argument. But, before long, they are back to their earlier flawed argument.
There are two main groups of anti-evolutionists — the young earth creations (or YEC), and the intelligent design creationists.
Young Earth Creationists
The YECs believe in a literal reading of Genesis, and often hold to the dating from Bishop Ussher, which sets the date of creation at around 4004 BC. This is contrary to dating estimates from geologists and astronomers, which set the age of the earth at around 4 billion years.
YEC creationists often argue dating methods used by science. They often argue for “flood geology“, according to which the geological layers result from the great flood in the story of Noah’s Ark. Flood geology does not fit the evidence, but that does not deter YECs from arguing for it. But there’s an obvious problem with the flood story. There are too many species for them all to fit onto the ark. So Ken Ham at Answers In Genesis, has had to propose a very rapid evolution at the end of the flood, to explain the variety of animals that we do actually see. It seems far simpler to just assume that the Noah’s Ark story is an ancient fable, and is not history.
Intelligent Design Creationists
The ID creationists usually accept that the earth is old. I’m not sure what they believe about the flood, because they rarely argue that. There main argument is that the biological organisms that we see are too complex to have arisen naturally, and can only be the result of an intelligent designer.
If the ID creationists kept this to philosophical (and theological) discussions, there would be less arguing and less controversy. But they want to insist that ID is science and should be presented in the science class. And, of course, real scientists object to this. The ID proponents do not have any actual scientific evidence to support their ideas. But they have lots of arguments as to why they see evolution as impossible.
Some of the ID proponents do accept that there has been some evolution, but they don’t believe there is enough to explain all. When it boils down, their greatest concern seem to be with humans. They really want humans to have been created separately, and not to have evolved from earlier species.
Common descent
Part of the idea of evolution, is that we descended from a common ancestor.
When I first heard about evolution as a teenager, I took it to be about common descent within the major phyla. It is not hard to see this among familiar animals (mostly mammals) or among insects. And the ideas of evolution did seem to tie together what we knew about these groups.
Some of the anti-evolutionists do agree that there was some evolution. As already mention, Ken Ham agrees with this, mostly because he needs it to explain how all of the animals could fit on he ark. The anti-evolutionists who accept some evolution, argue for a bush rather than a tree. That is, they believe there were many ancestors and descent from those ancestors within a narrow range. They won’t accept ancestry as an account of an entire phylum. They won’t accept ancestry as an account of vertebrates. And they even object to ancestry as an account of mammals. However, they are usually more willing and perhaps even for arthropods (the phylum containing insects).
It really looks as if their objection is to the idea that they are descended from apes. They really want to be able to say that humans are special and specially created.