Saturday, November 7, 2009

Richard Dawkins on Creationism

Via The Existentialist Cowboy, what is a single sentence that can disprove Creationism?

Richard Dawkins was recently issued a challenge --disprove creationiam in one sentence. I can do that myself. Here it is: If we can see Andromeda --some 2.5 MILLION years distant from earth --then creationism is false!

Andromeda can be seen even with the naked eye; in any case, it takes light from Andromeda some 2.5 MILLION light years to get here and be seen. That we can see these objects with or without telescopes UTTERLY DISPROVES creationism and a 'young Earth' or young universe.




What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

21 comments:

  1. Maybe Laci should respond to this post.

    She believes that evolved animals should kill themselves and you constantly applaud her views.

    Maybe suicide is the highest demononstration of evolution?

    I'm sure your hero, Laci, has some deep thoughts on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Since "Creationism" can be a rather broad term which encompasses everything from "the earth was created from nothing about 6000 years ago" to "God initiated the Big Bang which 'created' the universe and started the processes which have resulted in the present day earth," coming up with one fact which disproves all shades of this concept is impossible. Dawkins merely 'disproves' the young earth's view of creation.

    Using any fact (light from Andromeda takes 2.5 million years to travel to earth) to disprove an illogical position (the earth was created from nothing 6000 years ago), will only lead to more illogical discussion from people who believe the illogical position in order to explain away the inconvenient facts. Furthermore, those holding to the illogical position are completely incapable of seeing that their position is illogical but also not supported by facts.

    mikeb has shown us this many times in relation to gun control.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would not put my eggs in the basket of young earth creationism. Nevertheless, Dawkins shows himself a hypocrite here to accuse them of not considering some evidence against their beliefs when Dawkins shows he doesn't pay attention to what creationists are saying at all. Clearly, Dawkins is not embarrased to critisize a view that he knows little about.

    Creationists have published much about the issue of ancient starlight, so a one sentence refutation on starlight isn't going to cut it. In the old days, YECs suggested that God created the starlight in transit. That is still asserted, but now, some creationists have worked out cosmologies which suggest that the universe may be young by the earth's clocks, but ancient from the perspective of the time that has flowed elsewhere in the universe and the general relativity has caused the difference. Russell Humphrey's book "Starlight and Time" has worked this position out and though not all creationists have followed his "white hole cosmology" that he outlines there, many of them have worked out similar explanations.

    I don't pretend that I can assess the feasibility of these pictures, but my point remains, these one sentence refutations aren't worth much. You might as well just revert to the position that "creation science is wrong just because it's loony and I don't have to study diddly about them to determine that". A sloppy and reckless position of course, but at least it's honest.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A bit of overkill--to say "a mind like that is a disgrace to the human species."

    I notice he pronounces it EVIL-lootian. heh heh.

    "Fingers in the ears and singing la la la"--with eyes tight shut, I might add --describes evil-lootionists to me. They don't listen either.

    We who believe in special creation know the relatedness of all creatures being made with DNA formulas --they are all in the family of the Created by the Creator.

    As for light years --earth could have been created more recently in spite of the age of stars. But not every creationist is a "young earth creationist," you know. Take me, e.g. I don't hang my faith hat on the age of the earth --or the age of man. But I know that the evil-lutionists must have an ANCIENT earth in order to account for evolution of all life forms found on the earth. Even so, they speculate as to age by methods that are possibly flawed -- and even if the earth is that old, naturalism can't account for the marvels and beauties of life on the earth --the marvels of the human body --or of any creature, extinct or living. Similarities in DNA and among creatures do NOT prove the evil-lutionists' claims of nature without intelligent designer--nor do an old universe and an old earth.

    You'll both have to do better!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Reputo, one might think that with your emphasis on logic that you were formally trained in logic... unless they temselves where so trained.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Can you explain to me the difference between your belief in Gun Control with anther's belief in Creationism?

    ReplyDelete
  7. My, my, mother and son together again spouting their fundamentalist pap.

    For the Bible says....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rob, It wasn't Dawkins who used that reference to the stars. That was our friend the Existentialist Cowboy. Dawkins talked about the DNA. You may be right though, that he accuses others of not listening when he tends to do the same. And I agree with Barb about the final remark (insult).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Weer'd, Is that a challenge? You know how I feel about those.

    Besides, right now we're talking about creationism, the Bible, atheism, etc.

    I think you're obsessed with guns, man.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Weer'd, Is that a challenge? You know how I feel about those."

    I do, and I know how bad it looks when you make ZERO effort to defend what is a faith to you.

    Many religious people are uncomfortable with non-believers challenging their belief system. You're not different.

    Hell Mudrake is so adamantly against religion, but yet his beliefs are completely faith based, and he's banned comments on his blog from non-believers.

    "I think you're obsessed with guns, man."

    Do you read your blog?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, Weerd, no Mud_rake hasn't banned comments from sensible people, just hysterical lunatics.

    I'd even post comments from you because you fit only one of these two classifications.

    It surely is a STRETCH for Weerd to pin gun control on Mike as a 'faith.' But then, Weerd and the other bats in his cave, are desperate to find anything to silence Mike's strong gun-law principles.

    Mike has no 'faith.' He has an opinion backed up by substantive evidence.

    You, on the other hand, argue your point from your emotional attraction to guns. It would seem that you, Weerd, are the man of faith, the one who wears the blinders, who carries the bible in his pocket, who worships the Gun God in the sky.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rob R.

    Never took a logic course in my life. Unless you count Calculus, Physics, Differential Equations, Systems Engineering, Thermodynamics, etc as logic.

    Same principles, just not the flowery words the philosopher will use. Most people don't get excited by a^2 + b^2 = c^2. I do.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'll note the lack of evidence, as well as the name calling in Muddy's excellent rebuttal.

    I have no problem if an enemy of mine wishes to hang himself. I'll even hold the stool for him and let him borrow a nice hank of rope!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Muddy, since you claim not to be a religious follower of gun control.

    Will you do what MikeB refuses and answer Joe Huffman's One Question?
    http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

    I'll wait.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mike,

    Rob, It wasn't Dawkins who used that reference to the stars. That was our friend the Existentialist Cowboy.

    my mistake.


    Reputo,

    Same principles, just not the flowery words the philosopher will use.

    In fact they definitely aren't. No, if they were the same thing, it wouldn't have made sense for philosophers Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead to attempt to prove that mathematics was supportable via logic, and yet fail to do so though they did support the vast majority of it.

    Logic is far less demanding than most people think and even some forms of creationism, even if they could be demonstrated to be absurd may still be perfectly logical.

    Even solipsism is logical.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Are you scared of my question Muddy?

    Look at the coward, hiding behind his religion!

    ReplyDelete
  17. RE: As for light years --earth could have been created more recently in spite of the age of stars.

    That's just ignorant!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Re: Logic is far less demanding than most people think and even some forms of creationism, even if they could be demonstrated to be absurd may still be perfectly logical.

    Name just one and explain how 'they' are logical in any way.

    Moreover, creationism is NOT proven by logic but by empirical evidence for which there is none!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Len said, "RE: As for light years --earth could have been created more recently in spite of the age of stars.

    That's just ignorant!"


    I don't know about that, Len. As absurd as the idea is, in a fundie-sort-of way, it makes sense. God created the heavens (a long time ago) and the Earth (more recently).

    ReplyDelete
  20. I would like to comment on how Muddy ran like a coward.

    You are just as religious as the Pope, if not more.

    Wake up and listen to REALITY!

    ReplyDelete