Creation Mythologies

Refuting the illogic of "intelligent design" and creationism. An illustrated guide to fallacies of logic.

Almost all societies have invented creation myths in an attempt to explain the world, and human life and death. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious tradition is no different.

Christian creationism has its roots in the two-thousand-plus year old mythology recorded in Genesis. Various forms of creationism exist, all are religious, and each maintains a different relationship to scientific knowledge. Some variants of creationism accept the realities of science and the fact of biological evolution, while others deny uncomfortable scientific facts and attempt to replace reality with pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo and philosophical sleight of hand.

The so-called 'intelligent designer' is the latest Christian craze. Predominantly an American phenomenon, this rehash of Paley's “Blind Watchmaker” argument is an unscientific money-maker designed to supplant or compete with the teaching of evolution in classrooms. At least Paley was honest about his motives – those who testify on behalf of ID are not honest about the identity of the so-called 'intelligent designer' when they refuse to speculate on the identity of (God).

The most deluded form of creationism, Young Earth Creationism, goes so far as to deny the scientifically established age of the Earth in a deceitful attempt to support the ridiculous notion of Biblical inerrancy.

Recapitulating recapitulation

A short form for 'evolutionary development', Evo Devo is a branch of biology that addresses the interface between evolution and development of individuals (ontogeny).

Ernst Haeckel's (1866) formulation that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' is not accepted by modern biologists. His observations were accurate, his theoretical explanation (biogenetic law) is no longer accepted.

Ontogeny is the embryologic developmental process of individuals within a species, and phylogeny is the evolutionary history of that species. However, there is ample evidence that recapitulation does occur in so far as vertebrate embryos do resemble one another. This is the phenomenon in which a developing organism passes through (recapitulates) a similar attribute to that of an ancestral species. Fish are on the evolutionary tree of which Homo sapiens are a branch, yet we humans do not pass through a stage of being fish even though we do resemble fish embryos early in our embryological development.

"The embryonic vertebrate, at every stage, is an undeveloped and imperfect vertebrate, it can represent no adult animal whatever." *

The theoretical explanation accepted by most evolutionary biologists incorporates a variation on von Baer's hypothesis, that embryos develop from the most general features of the organism to the more specific. Differences appear over developmental time as species-specific elements form on a general vertebrate core.

The fact that literal interpretation of Haeckel's theory of recapitulation (biogenetic law) has been discredited is employed by creationists in an illogical attempt to discredit evolutionary theory. Creationists fail to distinguish the fundamental difference between an observation and the theory that explains that observation. Such attempts are illogical because Haeckel's formulation was merely a stage through which biological understanding passed. Attempts to discredit modern theory by citing theories discredited by modern science fail on the grounds that they are implied fallacies of composition. The fact that some earlier theories have been discarded does not mean that current theories ought to be discarded.

Such arguments may have emotional appeal to those who fear that science discredits their belief in biblical literacy and the Creator in Genesis. The point here, of course, is that emotionality is not logic-based. Rather, emotionality employs rationalization, which is an intellectualization intended to justify emotionally attractive beliefs.

Read an evolutionary biologist on this topic : Once more into the Haeckelian morass; or, Peter Moore is an illiterate fool

Part 13 of AronRa's Foundational Falsehood of Creationism series:

denial

Denial

Denial is an a la Freud defense mechanism – something that we sometimes do when confronted with an emotionally unwelcome fact. Denying a fact of reality does not alter or eliminate that fact, it merely affords us emotional comfort.

Denial is the most unfounded – hence the weakest – of any argument made against evidence. Professional creationists such as fodis*, those who earn a living through their assertions on behalf of creationism, typically do not make this blunder, rather they resort to fancier fallacies of logic.

Denial is, however, a common last resort for proids and is often the first verbal argument of biblical literalists, though it may be phrased more reasonably as, "I don't believe in evolution". Disbelief is a more reasonable position since we have the personal prerogative of picking and choosing our beliefs, though incredulity remains a fatally weak argument against physical facts. However, personal disbelief alone is not a good argument against that which is disputed.

Young Earth Creationists (YEC), with a position rejected even by mainstream creationists, deny the scientifically established age of the earth.

Godwin's Law and Desperate Attacks on Darwinism

"Author and Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy connects the dots between Charles Darwin and Adolf Hitler in Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, a groundbreaking inquiry into Darwin’s chilling social impact.

The program features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin’s theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler’s ovens. " Reported on ChristianNewsWire, Aug. 18, 2006.

"Chilling social impact" and "fueled Hitler’s ovens"?!

Charles Darwin was a natural historian who carefully examined the fossil evidence and formulated a mechanism to explain the observed temporal alteration in life forms. Darwin also correctly predicted that his formulations would excite the ire of fellow scientists of religious persuasion. Within a decade, almost all European scientists had accepted Darwin's ideas.

Not so in segments of American society, where attacks on any evidence counter to dogmatic belief in Biblical literacy not only flourish, but are given undeserved media attention. Such illogical and emotion-driven attempts to discredit Darwin reflect back upon the accusers, drawing attention to the weakness of their arguments and their lack of genuine grounds for criticism of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theories.

"“The legacy of Charles Darwin,” said Dr. Kennedy, is “millions of deaths, the destruction of those deemed ‘inferior,’ the devaluing of human life, and increasing hopelessness. Darwin’s legacy has been deadly indeed.”"

Power-mongering based on emotional thinking – Aryans are superior, die Juden are to blame – was responsible for eugenics-as-conducted-in-das-Reich and the holocaust. Distorting history in order to defame the first reasonable scientific explanation for the fact of biological evolution is yet another example of emotional thinking because it is clearly biased and irrelevant. Such association fallacies as these run counter to educated understanding of sociopolitical and psychological mechanisms.