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.

Illogical Deceit Theory

Why “illogical”? See the Fallacies of Logic section, a dissection of the fallacies of logic to be found in many arguments, specifically the arguments of creationists, pro-‘intelligent design theory’ debaters (proids) and professional proponents of "intelligent design" (idists.)

Why “deceit”? The claims of idists that idism does not speculate on the nature of the ‘designer’ are deceitful in view of all the evidence that links idism to religion. Any doubts concerning such evidence should be dispelled by googling abiogenesis, or "intelligent design", and observing the number of religion oriented websites. One has to wonder why, if the proposals of ‘intelligent design theory’ had true merit, the professional proponents of 'id' theory should have chosen to lie in court.

Claims that ‘intelligent design theory’ (idism) is science and not theology are also deceitful in view of the anti-evolutionist and religious stance taken by proids. God cannot be examined by science, so idism is religious both in subject matter and in approach. See also The Wedge Document and On the teaching of Pseudoscience. (External: On the Teaching of Pseudoscience and The Wedge Document.)

The arguments of idism belong in the realm of philosophy and not in the science curriculum. Therefore, discussion of idism ought to be confined to university level philosophy courses. There the principles of critical thinking ought to be within the intellectual grasp of most students. Further, the dissection of fallacies of logic is pertinent to the course curriculum in philosophy.

In the more than 10 years since idism has been attracting the donations of proids, idists and fodis have not performed a scientific investigation nor produced a single peer-reviewed scientific publication specifically related to idism.

___

For brevity, intelligent design theory will be abbreviated “idism”. In so far as religion appeals to the emotions and to faith-despite-absence-of-direct-evidence the term 'id' seems appropriate because it refers to the feeling, non-rational part of the brain.

For brevity, those who promote idism will be abbreviated “idists”. This is a more polite term than is sometimes employed. However, some of the chief advocates of idism do have higher education, and ought to be considered more intelligent than the less polite terminology implies. Haven't guessed the term? Substitute 'o' for the first 's' in "idists. Aside from the inaccuracy of this term, employing it renders the evolutionist debater guilty of an ad hominem fallacy.

Internet debaters who are pro-idism will be abbreviated “proids”, and while some of these individuals may seem, within vernacular usage, to warrant the discarded appelation above, committing ad hominem fallacies is not good argumentation.

For accuracy the purported intelligent designer, 'id', will be referred to as God. The ultimate point being that philosophers can speculate about the existence of God, but that science cannot, by its naturalist nature examine the supernatural.

Ignorance in the White House

Yes, I refer to Giorgio W. Borgia, Idiot-in-Chief who endorsed "teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools".

Ahem, might I point out that there are no alternatives to evolution ... biological evolution is a fact. How can there be alternatives to facts? Nonfacts?

Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

Debate is the key word in that statement. Debate falls under the aegis of philosophy, yet debate has little merit and ought to be abandoned when one side of the debate is clearly superior in terms of empirical facts and logic.

Almost four hundred years ago, Francis Bacon promoted empiricism and scientific induction. Science, which derives from the Latin root for knowledge, has long-since supplanted metaphysical philosophy for those who seek to comprehend the physical world. Scientific debate is a process directed toward better understanding of empirical facts.

As I have argued elsewhere, so-called "intelligent design" theory could be utilized as an exercise in philosophy classes. It is not science, it is not scientific, it is religion, it offers NO viable alternative explanation for the observable fact of biological evolution.

Why would Bush endorse an anti-science policy for public education? One can only assume that he is pandering to the conservative voters.

There are abundant reasons to consider Bush a fool who cares nothing for truth. This policy is yet another example. That Bush has blundered into a job far beyond his intellectual capabilities is testament to the problems inherent in the democratic process (voters) and to rigged elections. That Bush is allowed to remain in office despite uncovery of lies designed to instigate invasion of Iraq, when Clinton was impeached over a mere sexual peccadillo, is evidence of the intellectual malaise that has overtaken the US.

The Constitution insists upon separation of Church and State. Is Bush too dense to realize that his declared policy of putting ID theory into science classrooms is in violation of the Constitution? Does Bush not care to uphold the Constitution? Does Bush believe that most voters care nothing for the Constitution? Perhaps Bush knows that conservative voters do not know the difference between fact and fantasy. After all, some deluded souls voted for him.

oo

• Abiogenesis and Evolution • Algorithms of Evolution • Archea Eubacteria • Cancer • Cell Biology • Complex Systems • Cyanobacteria • Diagrams Tables • Endosymbiosis • Enzymes • Evo Devo • Evolution in Action • Fat • Geology • Galaria • Glossary • Godspell Follies • Harper's Folly • Immunology • Life Chemistry • Medical Science • Mechanisms of Evolution • Mimble Wimble • Molecule • Molecular Biology • Molecular Paths • Organics • Origin of Life • Paleogeology • Pathways • Photosynthesis • Protein • Receptor • Rocks & Minerals • SET • Signaling • Sleep • Stem & Progenitor Cells • Stromatolites • Tabula Flexuosa • Taxonomy Phylogeny • Tissue • Virus •