THE LATEST
« »

Search Archives:

Custom Search

Saturday, November 25, 2006

NEWSFLASH!: Creationists are Morons

Not much of a newsflash, really. But after dealing with a proponent of creationism for literally weeks over at Christianity General, I've come to the conclusion that people who believe in creationism and intelligent design all have something in common -- they're freakin' morons.

In order to believe either hypothesis (and they're both basically the same thing), you pretty much have to throw logic out the window. I can sum up their reasoning in one sentence; "I can prove evolution is wrong, so God must've done it." We'll leave aside whether or not evolution is correct for the moment. This 'logic' is exactly the same as saying, "Since two plus two does not equal five, it must equal six." You can't just pick an arbitrary conclusion and prove it correct by disproving something else.

This is what gets me about creationists -- they're either born stupid or they make it an art form. Creationists hold evolution to impossible standards, while holding creationism to no standards at all. Take every mention of evolution out of creationism and you've got nothing. It's not a 'theory' of anything at all -- other than 'evolution's wrong.' Which, of course, does absolutely nothing to prove creationism.

The hypocrisy's almost as astounding as the stupidity. They'll spend all day insisting there isn't enough proof of evolution, but have absolutely zero evidence of creationism -- and they call evolution 'junk science'. Ask a creationist, "Prove it," and they'll start trying to disprove evolution. And nothing you can tell them will convince them that it's not the same thing.

I'm in danger of writing a post with no links, which I hate. So here's a comprehensive list of creationist Nobel winners.

It's no wonder the list is non-existent. What experiment would prove creationism? What proof could you possibly have? I've said it before, but belief in something for which there is no evidence is faith, while belief is something for which there is contrary evidence is delusion. Creationism is belief in something for which there is contrary evidence.

If you want to put creationism in schools, then prove it. So far, no one has.

--Wisco


Technorati tags: ; ; ; ; is to what voodoo is to medicine

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

What do you mean, no evidence for creation? Evidence like what? Let me guess, you want to see God, is it? Otherwise, anything a creationist does or says to prove to you that God created life is just a waste of your valuable time, right?
In that case, we won't waste your time...

Figuring out that the sheer amazing complexity and diversity of life and the wonderful balance in nature could never, ever, have come about 'by accident' does not need a rocket scientist, IMHO.

Then again, what do I know...

Anonymous said...

If you think that any living creature, which is so mind-bogglingy complex, could have 'evolved' then I think it's you who is the moron.

Did intelligence evolve?
Did conciousness evolve?
Did we evolve saddness, happiness and love?

Anonymous said...

So, your arguement is to attack those you disagree with? No wonder you're upset.

Do I believe that evolution of all things started at a single point from an organic soup? No. Can I prove that God created everything? Prove? Not in the definitive way you seek. I could only give you the reasons why I believe.

I'm sure when you argue the subject, you have some valid points, and I'm sure there are some I lack the knowledge to even attempt to counter. But I don't believe you can definitively disprove the contention that God created all there is, either.

But since I'm automatically classified as a moron, you can (and likely will) certainly discount my opinions.

Takamori said...

I"m quite sorry that you three feel that the author has attacked your religion. That is not how I read it at all. On the contrary I believe that he was merely trying to express his point that Creationism cannot be considered a valid form of scientific inquiry because of it's lack of evidence. He never said that you are not free to believe what you want, but that is what it is, a belief. Beliefs are not what make up scientific theories, proofs, or evidence, belief is blind trust. Some of us just don't think that blind trust in a supernatural being is the most logical approach to life. We can coexist on this planet peacefully, but we must remember that we cannot force our beliefs onto others. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we shouldn't try to live together peacfully.

Darwinator said...


Figuring out that the sheer amazing complexity and diversity of life and the wonderful balance in nature could never, ever, have come about 'by accident' does not need a rocket scientist, IMHO


Believe whatever ridiculous crap you like, but DON'T argue that evolution is a random process. It's the opposite of random. It's completely and totally directed. Each "iteration" involves random mutations, but these mutations are then filtered via natural selection. This ensures that only mutations that benefit (or at least don't impair) the organism will be propagated.

I disagree with the author of the post about all creationists being morons. The most frustrating ones are the ones who DO have a brain. They waste their time trying to argue about definitions, to redefine things into a realm where they think their arguments hold water. It's sooooo stupid.


If you think that any living creature, which is so mind-bogglingy complex, could have 'evolved' then I think it's you who is the moron.

Did intelligence evolve?
Did conciousness evolve?
Did we evolve saddness, happiness and love?


Did intelligence evolve? Yes.
Did conciousness evolve? Yes.
Did we evolve saddness, happiness and love? Yes.

Now, here I agree with the author. The poster above is borderline retarded. :)

Wisco said...

A lot of these comments make my point for me. If creationism were true, you should be able to prove it without resorting to criticizing evolution. After all, I can explain that two plus two equals four without mentioning that it's not five.

All creationists can do is throw mud at evolution. They can't defend their own POV, so they have to attack evolution.

The problem is that they seem to think attacking evolution is the same as defending creationism -- it isn't. In fact, it doesn't help the case for creationism at all. If you were to conclusively prove that evolution hadn't happened, it wouldn't prove creationism. That's not logical.

Anonymous said...

There is no honor in saying somebody is a moron.

Anonymous said...

heh , you guys are way too naive (i mean that in a good way). You base your thinking solely on logic :) (please stay with me for this one).
Lets consider the folowing logic problem:
Lets consider that we have a logical object called a "Set" that is a collection of other objects.We say that a Set contains a certain object (except of course for the null set).
Now lets consider Sets that contain themselves like the Set A={1,2,6,A,7....} A contains A itself.Remember,we are building our own theory about sets,anything logical goes :). So we have certain Sets that contain themselves.
And now as a logical human being one must undoubtfully pop the question "Hey,what about the Set(lets name it SS) of Sets that don't contain themselves?Does SS contain itself or not?"
Well now if a set B were to be in SS it would mean that B does not contain itself.So if SS were to be in SS it would actualy mean that SS would not actually be in SS.
On the other hand if SS were not to be in SS it would actually mean that SS is in SS becouse SS is the set that contains the sets that do not contain themselves.OOOPPPSSSS.
We have now reached what logic calls a paradox :).
Sorry for writing all this,but i wanted to remind you that logic is incomplete and it has principial limitations called paradoxes.One should not rely entirely on logic when making a point that is not yet formaly defined in terms o paradoxial free logic :).Guess what ... creationism and evolutionism are not formaly defined logical entities .... you cannot use logic to supprt one or the other and yes , one can prove that 2+2 can be any known number :).
These arguments do not belong to me they are basic university mathematical logical principles :).
Take care you all.(StarCraft www.gosugamers.net)

jazon said...

Sure mathematic axioms can be shown to have irresovable paradoxes.

There are plenty of things in the universe that out-flank precise mathematical descriptions or require instead statistical vagueries (quantumland) or appear as paradoxical (where did the energy for the big bang come from is tantamount to "who created god").

So what if there are pardoxes!!

We shouldn;t be so arogant that because we don't have all the hole of knowledge plugged up that we need to throw in the towel and worship god.

Let's be a little more humble. Creationists want evolutionists to have everything figured out by now or throw the whole thing out. It's only been like 150 years since Darwin. Is that really enough time to answer all the questions about the history of life annd everything? So arrogant to think that. Arggh so frustrating. "Well where did the eye come from then", "Well it's all random!", and on and on...

morons. do some homework and use the brain that god gave you. did i just say that?

Tech Blog said...

Yes, they really are morons. Arguing with them is hopeless though. All they do is site the bible as factual information. Quite funny.

Anonymous said...

"It's the opposite of random. It's completely and totally directed. Each "iteration" involves random mutations, but these mutations are then filtered via natural selection. This ensures that only mutations that benefit (or at least don't impair) the organism will be propagated."

Mr. Dawkins? Is it you? (kidding, I agree)

Anonymous said...

I don't normally post comments on articles like this, but this one annoyed me a little.
I'm a creationist, I guess. I have faith that God does exist and that he created the world, but I'm not so arrogant to believe that I have it all figured out, and that evolutionists' arguments hold no merit: I can't prove that God exists, and I can't disprove evolution. I don't really want to get into an argument about it; I'm perfectly happy living in my "unenlightened" little world.
I'm only posting here because I don't really like the fact that you called all creationists morons; you didn't consider the fact that you're likely arguing with only a small subset of them. That is, you're arguing with the people who seem to think that doing God's work means arguing with people about creationism. Christianity to me means caring for other people as best I can.
Basically, I just hate blanket statements, and I don't think that it's helping creationists and evolutionists get along... at all.

Anonymous said...

I want to start by saying I'm not approaching this from either a creationist or evolutionist point of view, but the simple truth is that while evolutionist may show me incomplete evidence, they do, none the less, make the attempt. All the creationist shows me is assumption.

I think it was John Hume the Scottish Philosopher and Economist who, when talking about cause and effect said that if you had a set of scales, with one half hidden, and the visible half, containing a one pound weight, in the raised position, what could you infer about the content of the hidden side?

Pure unpartisan logic dictates that all you can assume is that it is something heavier than the one pound weight. It could be a two pound weight, a four pound weight or a weeks grocery shopping for a family of four, in other words, just something heavier, with no clues whatsoever about its nature. Therefore, just because everything in the universe seems to "fit well" together, it seems to me that all we can assume, is that this had a cause.

Speaking as that increasingly rare phenomenon, an open minded agnostic, I'm not bound to either point of view, it could be as the evolutionist tell us or it could be as the creationists tell us. I have to say though that up till now, while evolutionists present me with proofs (even if there are some gaps), all creationists do is ask me to take on their own assumptions with no compelling reason why I should.

Shadow said...

To those would think that creationism is correct:

I ask you one thing:

Considering that none of you have ever seen or witnessed anything that could beyond a shadow of doubt or reason be attributed to God or a godlike being, then why do you so vehemently proport your beliefs as fact?

Your beliefs are exactly that. They are beliefs. There is just as much proof that my gods and goddesses are real as much as there is for yours. In such, there is none.

Both sides have the same problem. Evolution is a theory. Plain and simple. I disagree with the fact that is taught as fact, but then how many times have we seen evidence throughout history that fact was eventually overturned by new truths, i.e, world once flat, now round.
Creationism is a theory. Plain and simple. It has no proof to support it other than the bible and the fact that its own followers cannot decide whether it should be literally or figuratively interpreted leaves creationism standing at the same precipice of doubt and failure as evolution.

I think both sides need to remain cognitive of one prevaling aspect.

Our perceptions define our reality. If we can see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, or hear it, then we can automatically assume that it is real.
However, our minds form interpretations based on those elements that make us who we are, and it is those elements that cause us to form the opinions that we have about the things we encounter in life, be them physical or not.

In fact, there is no one on this planet who can say that either side is right because none of us truly know.

Unless someone would like to come forward and say they were there at Christ's crucifixion or the creation of the cosmos.

None of us will know for certain until we pass on into the afterlife, whatever fate that may be. Until then, we can only continue to believe as we do, but just because one thinks they are right does not automatically make them so.

Anyone who cares to debate this, I welcome such.
Please email me:

shadowreign666@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Hello everybody,i have been reading your posts and i like everyone's ideeas and rationality.I don't want to take any sides in this debate but i want to emphasize something about theories.
To my knowledge any theory is based on a few principles that are some facts that are assumed true or standing without the need to prove them.
Every branch of physics for example has a set of principles that are the foundation on which physics itself is built.
The fact is that these principles are constantly changing becouse they are incomplete and new experiments made by physicists can't be explained with the current set of principles.(http://cerncourier.com/main/article/39/5/1 ,for example)
So this means that you shouldn't try to argue about something that is so abstract and ambiguous as creationism and evolutionism if the basics of sciences are still eluding Man's rationality.You are building your arguments on these incomplete scientific principles , so your arguments themselves are incomplete until the foundations of sciences can be proven sound.:) I once again state that I admire you all for the arguments and discussions that you displayed here.

rebolek said...

those cretenists, oh creationists...

so evolution is too complex to happen by accident so it must be work of God.

but that God is too complex also is no problem, because it's God.

so it must be true because it was written in a Book! yes, it's not the oldest book, we don't even know who exactly wrote it and it contradicts itself in many many places but every word in it is true.

yes, that's great way of thinking.

Anders said...

Figuring out that the sheer amazing complexity and diversity of life and the wonderful balance in nature could never, ever, have come about 'by accident' does not need a rocket scientist, IMHO.

It didn't come out of accident, quite the opposite. It's one of the most directed processes known to us.

Did intelligence evolve?
Did conciousness evolve?
Did we evolve saddness, happiness and love?


Yes, yes and...(can you guess it?) yes.

Do I believe that evolution of all things started at a single point from an organic soup? No. Can I prove that God created everything? Prove? Not in the definitive way you seek. I could only give you the reasons why I believe.

So that's a vote for "It might as well be the Flying Spaghetti Monster as long as someone believes it".

There is no honor in saying somebody is a moron.

Actually, there's quite a lot of honor in pointing out things that are true but people refuse to realize.

We have now reached what logic calls a paradox :).

Anthropomorphizing logic now are we? I bet you're one of those people who think the Incompleteness Theorem shows all kind of magic things. You're wrong. And no, you can't prove 2+2 to be any known number within a given axiomal system (such as the one we're using).

I'm only posting here because I don't really like the fact that you called all creationists morons; you didn't consider the fact that you're likely arguing with only a small subset of them.

Does it matter who he was arguing with? You believe in something comparable to the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why is your god, and your creation history any more likely to be right than the Hindu one? The Nordic one? The Zarathustran one? As long as you hold the belives you do, you ARE a moron, an arguing one or not.

Therefore, just because everything in the universe seems to "fit well" together, it seems to me that all we can assume, is that this had a cause.

But you're acting contrarily to the scenario! You are assuming something about what's on the other side, namely you're assuming cause, which is comparable with assuming that what's on the other side of the scale is apples, you just don't know how heavy.

To my knowledge any theory is based on a few principles that are some facts that are assumed true or standing without the need to prove them.

You're talking about axioms. In an extreme sense you're correct. Science does for example assume we exist and isn't just sensory input into a sole consciousness and there's also more complex axioms (such as the foundation of math) but it's not really all that relevant for the discussion. If we don't make some assumptions we would not be able to complete the most basic task, such as going to the store shopping. We assume the laws of physics doesn't change day to day so that we'll fall through the floor. We assume that our eyes will still be able to pick-up light so that we can see. And so on and so on.

Anonymous said...

Creationist cannot get along with anyone who doesn't agree with them. This is why, as Wisco points out, when you engage in a debate with them they try to nitpick all the things they feel are wrong with evolution as opposed to detailing all the things that are right with Creationism. However, if you turn the tables and start nitpicking at the flaws in their Holy Bible, they denounce you for intolerance and being too literal. Irony, thy name is Christianist.

So here I am to stand forth and say that there's no reason to tolerate Creationists who denounce anything that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions, even if there's a wealth of data backing up your assertions. They're not interested in the data. They're not interested in anything except clinging to their blind faith and rejecting anything that might challenge it.

Good science encourages challenge to its assumptions. Good science requires new data to come forward to oust old data and old conclusions. Maybe we'll find data that casts the first shadow of a doubt that evolution isn't accurate. No matter how science increases our understanding, you will never see the same rational thinking applied to Creationism or the religions that promote it. Religion cannot operate in the light; it requires stringently delineated areas of doubt and ignorance to thrive. Knowledge is dangerous to someone who clings to blind faith, because sooner or later you have to choose between the two. I had to make that choice in my early adult years, and I chose knowledge. People of faith can pity me all they like, but I sleep better knowing (or not knowing as the case may be) that the world is based on more than truth by assertion.

Anonymous said...

To those who say 'Evolution is just a theory', I say, "Open a science textbook." EVERYTHING in science is a 'theory'. They are constantly tested, true. They can and have been shown to be invalid in some special cases.

But 'it's just a theory, not a fact' isn't a valid argument. Newton's 'laws' are misnamed, they are simply 'theories'. In fact, they are essentially wrong theories, in that they don't work for things that are going really, really fast.

General Relativity describes things going really, really fast, and it fixes the problems with Newton's 'theory'. In fact, it simplifies to newton's theories in simple circumstances (where things move at non-relativistic speeds). Therefore, even though a theory can be 'disproven' by providing counter-examples, any 'theory' which is supposed to replace it will simplify to the theory it replaces under the circumstances where the original theory worked.

And having faith isn't moronic. There is a difference between creationists and people who believe in intelligent design.

'Creationist' simply means that you believe one or more gods or godlike beings created Earth and the life on it.

Believers in ID are a subset of creationists.

All believers in ID (as opposed to evolution) are moronic, true. But not all creationists believe that. And not even all IDers believe that.

I've developed a way to point this out to people, but have yet to test it. Here is my method: Give them a six-sided die. Tell them to roll it. Tell them that if they roll a six, in a little imaginary universe "Life Happens!" Tell them to roll until they get a six.

Say, "That's what you believe evolution is."

Tell them to put the dice on the table, with the six up.

"That's what you believe happened, an all-powerful creator made life happen."

They should be able to do both of those very easily. Now comes the kicker. Hand them the die again, and tell them to move it, using both hands and any avaliable tools so that it perfectly mimics a dice roll without human intervention, and make sure it lands on a six.

They won't be able to. So then, ask them: "If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, could he make 'random' events turn out the way he wants? Could he, in effect, move the dice in a way that you can't, so that it looks like it was just random chance?"

Of course, they must answer yes. The Book says so.

"Then why do you limit his power? Why try to explain away all the scientific evidence that evolution happens? Why not do as I do: Look at evolution and realize exactly how difficult it has been for God to do what he has done: Provide a plausible explanation for life to have happened without his intervention, so that the Free Will he created may continue to exist, leaving people free to disbelieve Him."

"Instead of trying to disprove evolution, which I believe is impossible without creating a theory which simplifies to evolution under the circumstances evolution fits, accept that evolution is the means by which God 'Intelligently Designed'. Don't seek to challenge science, sending humanity back into the Dark Ages, instead, give context to it within your belief system. Evolution does not 'disprove' God, rather it proves his Divine power and wisdom."

I can't think of a single counterargument against my method, save complete idiocy.