Top Ten Creationist Arguments

So my buddy Todd posted this video on facebook (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8) watch it if you want but I will outline it here. The idea is that there are ten arguments made against atheism and this video is supposed to refute them, in fact on Todd's post it even went so far as to suggest using these counter arguments. I asked Todd if he wanted a reply but he made no answer, of course this is not surprising as he is not on Facebook real often so he probably has not seen it yet. However I have thought about it for a couple of days and decided to reply because I think it is important not only for non-believers but for those who would use these arguments in the way they are presented here.

The top ten are:
1. Carbon Dating
2. Proving evolution
3. Monkeys
4. Human eye
5. Atheism religion
6. Scientist X
7. Chance
8. Christian Nation
9. Thermodynamics
10. Hitler

We'll do them in order but first two definitions.

Ad hominem; an argument which appeals to feelings or prejudices rather than logic usually by attacking an opponent's character rather than his contention.

Straw man argument; a weak or imaginary argument set up to be easily refuted.

The first argument presented in the video is that Christians complain that carbon dating is inaccurate and therefore an unreliable way to date the Earth. The video rightly points out that carbon dating is not the means which is used to try and determine the age of the Earth and that we can be sure that the Earth is something like 4.5 billion years old. The straw man argument here is that all Creationists/Christians believe in a six day creation. The ad hominem is that since all Christians believe in the six day creation they therefore cannot take part in Science which is why they say silly things like, "Carbon dating is used to measure the age of the Earth." Of course I have heard some folks say this arguing against atheism and it always makes me cringe because I do not think the Bible teaches six day creation.

The word used for day in Genesis is "yom" (day) as in "Yom Kippur" (the day of atonement), but the word does not mean necessarily a 24 hour period. Rather it means a period of time which can mean anything from an hour, day, year, time, lifetime, period of time; the word is used in many different ways. I think here the intention of the author is not to explain the Earth was made in six twenty-four days but rather that God (YHWH) made the universe and everything in it. Why do I think this? Simple, the Torah was not written for skeptical 21st century scientists but rather to a group of people who had just left Egypt for the desert. They had been a culture for 400 years which taught the universe was birthed by the great celestial cow (btw did anyone notice the first idol they made was a calf? That was not coincidence) and Moses is writing to tell them that the Egyptian gods are no gods at all. Rather the universe and everything in it was made by the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and this God had sent Moses to them to lead them to Canaan. Therefore the creation account in Genesis is not, was not intended to be, and should never be thought of as an exhaustive scientific treatment on Creation. Rather it is a social/political document intended to serve as the foundation for the body politic of Israel. Which is exactly what it did. So to say that "All Christians believe in a six day Creation and the carbon dating is how we measure the Earth's age," is demonstrably false and as such point one is invalid.

Two. When it comes to proving evolution the majority report among the scientific community is that evolution is how all life came to be. However it is by no means the exclusive report. In fact as more study is done more people are becoming persuaded of the intelligent design model of the universe. However the video declares that evolution is settled proven science, but doesn't actually say why. So to argue this way is to say, "Evolution is settled science and therefore it does not need to be defended beyond the assertion that it is settled science." This is roughly akin to saying, "I know there is a God because the Bible tells me so and the Bible is the word of God." Another definition? Circular argument; an argument which assumes the truth of the conclusion and uses the conclusion to prove the assertion. And so goes step two.

The third is "Christians ask if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" and then says "This is like saying if we came from England then why is there still England?" The problem is that this equivocates on what the phrase "came from" means. Equivocate; to change the definition of a word or phrase to suit one's argument. No one seriously believes that when we leave our homes for work or play that our home spontaneously ceases to exist until we return, and yet that is exactly the ad hominem which is used against the Creationists on this point. Also to evolve from one sort of creature over hundreds of thousands or millions of years is different than sailing across the ocean. Furthermore the whole idea of natural selection is that when a favorable adaptation comes along the species which adapts better to environmental pressures is able to supersede the non-adapted species and therefore is able to better breed/hunt/compete often resulting in extinction of the other. So the definition of "came from" is changed and thus the argument against the Creationist argument falls on its head. Furthermore no one is saying that we evolved from chimps, rather that we and chimps would share a common ancestor. An ancestor btw which is conspicuously absent from the fossil record.

The fourth point focuses on the human eye, but it centers around the idea of irreducible complexity. Darwinian Evolution argues that complex systems build slowly over time passing from one state of usefulness to the next until a fully formed eye for example is formed. Now it is important to remember that natural selection tells us that mutations which are not beneficial pass away because other members of a specie are able to use different mutations to their advantage and so cause those without the mutation to become extinct. The problem for the eye is that eyes are not good for much except for seeing. So if an eye has to develop over time a filled sack, a lens, an iris, rods, cones and an optic nerve then all of these things would have to form at the same time and rate because an eye is not much good without them. Thus the eye is irreducibly complex. The video however just points out that not everything which detects light uses an eye which apart from being startling startling example of the obvious says nothing whatever to gainsay the irreducible complexity of the eye itself. Of course then it complains that the human eye is somewhat lacking when compared to eyes of octopi, but of course this also says nothing about the irreducible complexity of the eye. It just says the narrator would have done it differently.

Next the video denies that atheism is not a religion because atheists do not believe in God. However religion is not a belief in God only, but psychologically it is a worldview which explains the universe around us, how we fit into it and where we come from. This is called a heuristic device and there is a wonderful book called Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths by Paul Veyne which explores this in depth. For this point of view, that religion is a heuristic device, atheism absolutely is a religion and science is its dogma.

Then we are told that the vast majority of scientists do not believe in God and the video, without actually saying so, hints that those who do are a little weird citing Newton and alchemy as an example. Of course no one's belief in God makes God real anymore than unbelief makes God real so to cite the argument of "Scientist X is a theist" in reverse as a means to disprove the existence of God is to commit the same logical error about which the video complains. Furthermore I think that our narrator would not desire to set aside the findings of the human genome project because its director is a theist, even if that did make him weird, so the argument is a little hypocritical.

Next the video tells us that Creationists complain that chance is the driving force behind natural selection and that can't be so. Then the video tells us that it is not chance, but rather chance plus lots and lots of time. Here's the thing. There is no such thing as chance as a causative force. Chance cannot cause anything to happen because there is no such thing as chance. Chance is the measure of human ignorance of the odds. For example if you play poker you are not playing a game of chance. You do not get your cards by chance, you get them by the order in which they were shuffled divided by the number of players and in relation to your position to the dealer. Since chance, at best, is a short hand phrase for mathematical probability it therefore cannot do anything because it has no being, will or power and thus cannot cause anything to happen. So the narrator is saying that nothing plus lots and lots of time causes everything. Do I really need to say more?

America's not a Christian nation, neither are it documents Christian and many of its founders were not Christian, however since this is really just a restating of the "Scientist X" argument it holds no water either and for the same reason no matter which way you argue it.

The four laws of thermodynamics are;
Zeroth's Law "If system A are in thermal equilibrium with system C then they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other."
1) Increase in energy in an internal system = heat supplied + work
2) When two systems are near but separate and are allowed to interact with each other they will reach thermal equilibrium. The total entropy of the two systems will be less than or equal to the final combination
3) The entropy of a perfect Crystal at absolute zero is zero.

There took about ten second to find them on wikipedia. However since the process of entropy causes complex systems break down as they achieve equilibrium with the surrounding space it is fair to say that entropy destroys it does not build. So while it is true of closed systems, it still applies to things like the sun and earth because entropy tells us that eventually these systems will reach 0 energy no matter how complex they are now. In other words entropy does not build even if liberally salted with chance and time.

Finally the Hitler argument. This is the third stating of "Scientist X" argument, but whatever. For the narrator to complain that Creationists say that Hitler was an atheist and then argue that he was Catholic is dishonesty at its absolute finest. Furthermore Hitler's greatest intellectual influence was Nietzsche who absolutely was an atheist. Nietzsche further taught that since there was no God there was foundation for truth or morality and that life was meaningless. Therefore the existential hero was "das uber mensch" (the super man) who strove for power and meaning in the here and now even though ultimately these things did not exist. Hitler embraced this philosophy we know because he handed out copies of Thus Spake Zarathustra to his cronies who would one day form the leadership elite of the Nazi Party. We also know these men were deeply influenced by it because the existing writings of Goebbels, Himmler, Hess, Goering, etc tell us plainly that they were. Seeing as how Nietzsche was an avowed atheist and the fundamental underpinning philosophy of the Nazi movement was Nietzschean in its orientation it seems strange to object to the claim that Hitler was an atheist.

However it it is neither a proof for or against the existence of God whether Hitler was an atheist or not. So the point is moot.

There are a lot of people who will say very silly things to try and prove the existence of God, but to broad brush all Christians with these strokes is not to argue against the existence of God at all, but rather to argue against the silly arguments of some Christians. In other words the thinking atheist would appear to be nothing of the sort.