Stumble it!Interesting it ain’t
posted in Biblical by themaiden |For a full review of the fossil record of man, read Prof. Marvin Lubenow’s comprehensive book “Bones of Contention”. In the end, you will discover that the Bible, not the highly imaginative minds of TV producers at The History Channel, tells the true history of the world, including the origin of the first people (in Genesis 1).
I thought AiG would have something a bit more interesting to say about the History Channel’s little production. But, as I ought to expect, there is nothing of any real substance in the ‘rebuttal.’ Essentially, having criticized the imaginations of scientists and painted the collective works of 100+ years of the world’s scientists as fiction, AiG extols us to believe the creative minds of the Priestly class of a desert tribe living some 2,500 to 3,500 years ago. Wow! That is convincing.
This article does highlight the difference between the creationist’s approach to knowledge and the scientific approach. The creationist assumes the answer at the onset and stubbornly holds to it. A creationist claiming otherwise, is lying. The creationist has the advantage over the scientist in that the creationist, having assumed the answer, can be absolutely sure of the answer. The creationist can be certain that no matter what the evidence suggests, it all must ultimately add up to the assumed right answer. The creationist needs only to squeeze the facts into that answer. The creationist, additionally, can be absolutely sure that evidence which contradicts the Answer, must be wrong. This gives the creationist quite some nerve; nerve which they then use, should one read more deeply, to deny virtually the whole of human knowledge, their book withstanding.
The scientist, on the other hand, will take what evidence is available and attempt to construct a tale that is consistent with that evidence. The scientist has the disadvantage of not knowing the answer from the outset, and, like an explorer looking for a passage through the mountains, often takes the wrong path and must then backtrack and re-think. The creationist is quite fond of scoffing at such silliness, and extols the explorer to ‘just take my word for it.’ The explorer, commenting that the creationists instructions for crossing the mountains– a trip, by the way, never made by the instructor– lead to numerous and horrific precipices, continues to prod the mountain for trails. The scientist also has the further disadvantage of not having all of the facts at hand at the onset. This is very much like not having the answer preordained, being only one step removed. That is, our mountaineer does not have detailed satellite images of the mountains he has only just encountered. Nor does he have much other information beyond what he can see and hear and smell. Most of the range is a complete mystery and will remain so for many many long years.
We don’t criticize the explorer for his efforts and his plodding unsure progress, as he is doing the best with what he has, but the creationists show their ignorance and spite by leveling just the same criticisms at science. We do not fault the explorer for not following directions given him by someone who has never crossed the mountain, but who merely assumes the route and stands to it. And the creationists have truly never crossed the mountain. Creation science is not only incomplete but requires the rewriting of nearly every rule science has yet formulated.
Popularity: 1%
