Creationism is bunk

Just in case you were wondering, Creationism is bunk.

Here are the top 5 people that Google says agree with me: (for right now, it is 2, because I have to go pick up my daughter.)

denBeste:

Science and Engineering (and why Creationism is bunk)

At it's most fundamental level we can define science as two different activities: the collection of facts about the universe, and the attempt to create explanations of how those facts relate to each other. The scientific enterprise has been going on as long as humans have existed, but science as we now use the term dates from about the fifteenth century, which is where it finally got onto the right track, and also when it finally started developing procedures which work.

Engineering is easier to describe, though no easier to carry out. The goal of engineering is to create useful devices. For every scientist, there are probably 10-20 engineers. (Science doesn't make money. Engineering does. We engineers are a lot more profitable to hire.)

The "collection of data" part of science is pretty easy to understand, but the "tie it all together" part is widely misunderstood.

There are three words in rising order of importance: conjecture, hypothesis and theory.

Is Creationism Scientific?

A lecture given by Dr Stephen Law for the BHA Darwin Day Lecture 2003 on February 12th 2003 at Conway Hall, London

What is creationism?
We are here to discuss creationism. So the first thing we need to be clear about is what we mean by "creationism".

The kind of creationism that I am concerned with here - the kind that, for example, is being taught in that State-funded school up in Gateshead that you may have heard about - is the form of creationism known as Bible Literalism .

Bible literalists don't just believe that God created the universe. After all, many reputable scientists are prepared to accept that.

No, they believe something much stranger. They believe that everything claimed in the Bible should be accepted as literally true .

So when it say, in Genesis, that God made the universe and every living species in just six days, creationists accept that this is literally true. The genesis story is not a myth or metaphor. It all really happened just as described in the book. That's the sort of creationism we're concerned with here.

Comments

[tina]

I think Stephen J. Gould might also make your list!

[Liz]

and he will (as well as some others) if I ever get around to editing this post.

[Liz]

well, rather than revise the post, I'll just rattle on here:is an excellently-done page, that lists each questionable creationist assertion with a rebuttal. Go, look,learn.

[Camille Sehlmeyer]

Hi. I believe in creation just as the bible states in Genesis. I have also very carefully looked at the theory of evolution and found that there wasn't any credible evidence of evolution. The basic of principles of evolution haven't stood the test of new discoveries in astronomy, physics and biochemisty either. I can see the theory of evolution falling by the wayside in my lifetime. Intelligent design would be closer to the evidence found for the origin of all things. I'm not sold on that theory either because its understood methods of "evolution" do not fit the character of the God of the bible. God does not need millions and millions of years to create. The millions of years scenario also includes the idea that species would evolve by intelligent manipulation of their growth and development by the "survival of the fittest". It is out of Gods character to create a human or any other type of living creature through suffering, destruction and death. One might say that He allows suffering and human destruction presently but intelligent design does not take into account the fall of man, which is what led His creation to experience suffering and destruction. Creation is not only the most plausible explaination but it is also the most humane theory of our origin. It also falls in line with many of the current laws of universal science, such as the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.