En Passant: Arguments for a Recent Creation

You know what I find somewhat amusing? The people over at Conservapedia have this page that lists a number of arguments that support a recent creation, i.e. within the last 10,000 years or so. Quite extensive, too. It’s obviously very well-researched. Full of crackpot theories, sure, but at least they’re well-researched crackpot theories.

But what strikes me as a bit odd is that while as of this writing, they’ve spend two weeks on it and been able to find no less than 38 different “scientific” arguments, they haven’t gotten around to writing even one under ‘Theological reasons’. Pardon me, but shouldn’t that sort of be the foundation for the whole thing? Biblical literalism and all that? You know, if you need a little help here, I’m always ready to lend my research skills for a very reasonable consultancy fee.

Well, anyway – keep up the good work, guys.

Oh, and needless to say, RationalWiki has an extensive refutation of the whole thing (or most of it – work in progress). We’re seeing a frank and open exchange of opinions here, ladies and gentlemen, and it’s great to see!


7 Responses to “En Passant: Arguments for a Recent Creation”

  1. 1 PalMD June 14, 2007 at 11:57 pm

    I could have this wrong, but what I’ve read of Christian Apologetics, which is rather popular at CP, its goal is to find “rational” and well-reasoned arguments for belief, not just belief-on-faith. So, while many religious folks would argue faith alone is sufficient, others would say faith, but also rational defense and explanation. I certainly sinks any hope for “nonoverlapping magisteria”, so they have THAT in common with Dawkins. Ironic.

  2. 2 Flippin June 15, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    It goes withoutm say, but I’m a tautological fellow who can’t resist: how can they rely on science for answers when according to Andy, the laws of physics are mutable?

    By that comment you should also assume I don’t believe in school prayer, I would get an abortion if I weren’t male, and my dream is to tax the rich so that the working class can survive.

  3. 3 Aziraphale June 15, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    I believe PalMD is correct – the idea is that a Young Earth is provable. It makes perfect sense, because as long as one side is arguing in (to make a metaphor) French and the other side is arguing in Chinese, neither can convince the other. By speaking the same language, it now becomes possible. I know, I know… but that’s the premise, and it’s a sound one as far as it goes.

  4. 4 Just me June 15, 2007 at 8:54 pm

    Karen Armstrong, in her book about the history of fundamentalism, The Battle for God, says that in the premodern world, people believed in two kinds of knowledge; “logos” and “mythos”. Logos was derived from reason and study of the natural world, and it explained how things worked in the day to day world. Mythos was derived from inspiration and revelation, and explained the moral underpinnings of the universe. Something like the creation of the world at the beginning of Genesis was a mythic story, explaining something about God and man, and our relationship. To the premodern world, the Genesis myth was true, but it wasn’t neccesarily observable…if you could go back in time, you wouldn’t see it happen. It was true in the spiritual realm, no matter what actually happened in the physical realm.

    Then, she says, the scientific revolution happened, and with it, the doctrine that there’s only one kind of truth…that of logos. Truth was defined as “what really happened”, and myth was downgraded.

    This made fundamentalism possible, because the fundamentalists, being modern people and having the believe that logos is the only truth, decided that their holy books, if they were to be true, had to be true in the realm of logos. So, they applied logos to the myths.

  5. 5 PalMD June 15, 2007 at 10:04 pm

    I think flippin gives one of the best flaws to Apologetics and other such ideas…if the laws if physics are inconstant, how can you use them to prove your faith-beliefs? One sentence says it all. I’m curious to see how apologists like KDB and Phill R use various mental gymnastics to overcome that on.

  6. 6 Flippin June 16, 2007 at 10:40 pm

    I understand Armstrong’s point about logos and mythos, however, this again begs the question, if their creation myth is unsupported by science because it predates science (I suppose) do they not understand the position they’ve put their defense of creationism in? And if their entire argument rests on faith, why bother to argue with us? Aren’t we just an impediment to their aim?

    Further, they spend so much time over there reverting vandalism, why bother to even keep the site open? I enjoy this “sport” of baiting the neocons and the YEC, but frankly, were I in their position, I would just shut down the site to any new editors, work on articles/pages with the folks I have, then reveal it to the world in a more mature form.

    I think Andy has made an egregious error in underestimating the tendency of internet users to frown upon this kind of creation (no pun intended). Or, that was his goal, to begin a site that could be martyred for the cause. I get this idea from his essay on liberal activities on CP, or whatever the hell it’s called, and his unwillingness/refusal to allow a liberal to be seen in a positive light.

    I’ll shut up now, but I think if people don’t understand that last point, a good way to go about it is to insert the word “negro” every time Andy says liberal. Kind of like a drinking game for the ironic among us.

  7. 7 Just me June 18, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    They don’t, because they don’t understand that the creation story is myth. They know it’s true because the bible says it is, so therefore, they figure, it must be supported by science, because they, like everybody else nowadays, give science priority in figuring out truth claims.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

View Andreas Kjeldsen's profile on LinkedIn

Be a patron of the arts!

Support a poor writer.



%d bloggers like this: