Atheist Armaments

A molecular geneticist proceeds to serve some cold truth to Kent Hovind. The argument is “Science regularly applies evolution towards new breakthroughs in science, which directly benefit everyone. What applications have their been from theories based on Creationist science?”It’s a very simple question, really. But think about that for a moment. Let’s suppose that Creationists are correct. What will they do with their theories that will benefit the Human race at large? It really seems that most of their theories are entirely self-serving: they develop theories based on creationism to further prove the validity of creationism. Science, on the other hand, develops theories based on evolution (Biology, anyone?) which are used to develop things such as vaccines, or synthetic materials, or foods that can be easily consumed and harvested.In this video, Kent bumbles around a lot and repeatedly tries to throw red herrings, deflect the argument, and even throws a “No True Scotsman” argument (in reference to the IRA not being true Christians). But he never provides any solid examples of how Creationist theory could benefit humanity.

I got to thinking about this, and I really can’t think of any ways myself. I’m not trying to be biased here — I’d really like to believe that they would be able to do something with this, because it’s quite possible we’ll be stuck with having them in the majority. But what will a new-earth-creationist cum Scientist develop to benefit the rest of us?

Creationism is not science, as I have said many times before. It doesn’t use the empirical method and is a repeat offender of a number of logical fallacies in its substance. When you move away from science, the very idea of developing theories becomes nonsense.

For what it’s worth, consider the theory he mentions in this video (paraphrased): “I believe that if you dig down into the earth you’ll find millions of skeletons buried in a layer due to the catastrophe that was the great flood [in reference to the Noah myth]”.

Let’s suppose his theory is correct, just for humor if nothing else. “Ok, you win, Kent. We give up. We found millions of skeletons because the great flood happened.” Now what? I would conjecture that would be pretty strong evidence in favor of the rest of the Bible being true. So we’ll accept the rest of the Biblical stories as well. The full lot of em. Seven days of creation and all. What now? What do we do with it?

In order to use science, we have to set some “rules” to work by. Things such as electrical attraction/repulsion, acids & bases, gravity, Newton’s laws of motion; You have to have rules so you can minimize your variables and measure observable changes to draw conclusions. If we accept everything in the Bible as fact, then what do we use as laws of the universe? [Pardon the semi-straw man here:] Would chemistry become a profession where you take two substances and pray for the result you want? The graces of God bless your reaction and move it in favor of a desired product (Law of Conservation of Mass and Le Chattlier’s Principle be damned!).

It just doesn’t make sense. We’ve seen a world without science, and it was called the Dark Ages. Pretty bleak, really. Unless you like oppression, swordfights, and mythologies. Why would people want to regress to that? I suppose they might argue that science doesn’t really matter when the rapture happens, but honestly, that’s just creepy.

If you adopt the rapture mentality, what’s the point of living at all? Being born would be a curse; You would be obligated to spend your whole life in worship just to get a shot to live in eternal Heaven. “But it’s HEAVEN!!! Heaven is GOOD! That’s not a curse!” someone might respond. The curse isn’t going to heaven, it’s being born before the rapture so that you have to spend your whole life in worship so you don’t get screwed over. Anyone born after the rapture (if that’s indeed possible at all) would get a free ride. If it’s not possible to be born after the rapture, then why is anyone being born right now at all? This stuff just doesn’t make sense. It’s like talking to a drunken stoner: they think what they’re saying is so profound but it’s totally non-sensical.

Science works.

Science observes reality, formulate hypotheses, test those hypotheses and draw conclusions based on the test results. When Darwin reluctantly wrote the “Origin of Species” he didn’t say beforehand “I bet that there’s something called survival of the fittest and that we all derived from monerans. How can I prove this?” He took the Beagle (his ship) around the world on a voyage. His voyages led him to the Galapagos Islands (off the coast of Ecuador, in South America). While there, he OBSERVED similar animals on each of the islands, but each animal was significantly different in a way that suited them better to their environment. (This later became the basis for Survival of the Fittest) Biologists today have proven that when two species are separated into significantly different living conditions for enough generations (a dozen or so generations) they can become so radically different that they won’t mate with one another.

Get it? He OBSERVED reality first, made some predictions about what he should find, and then drew conclusions based on whether or not his predictions were correct.

If you wanted to retroactively apply science to religion (for verification purposes, I suppose) here is a sample thought process (borrowed from Mr. Hovind, above):

1. The Bible says that there was a Great Flood thousands of years ago that wiped out the whole of the living world (including the fish, although I don’t quite understand why)
2. If the Bible were correct, we would indeed probably see a very concentrated layer of fossils in the layer that SCIENCE TELLS US corresponds to that period (probably a hundred feet down or so?). Since the Bible also says that human life began near the Tigris and Euphrates, the middle east or a nearby arable region is probably a good place to start digging. This is called a hypothesis.
3. This is the important step: stop arguing about it and go dig. Make some calculations based on where you think it would be — pick a likely spot. We’re trying to PROVE something here. This is what makes it falsifiable (an important aspect of science).
4. Did you find bones as predicted? If not, what did you find? This is where you DRAW CONCLUSIONS.
5. If desired, repeat the dig in another location.
6. If, after a reasonable number of digs, you do not find the layer of bones then one of two things has happened:
   1. Your hypothesis (remember, it’s only a theory when there’s substantial supporting evidence) was incorrect. You can re-write your hypothesis and develop a new experiment.
   2. Your premise (the biblical context) is false. At this point you admit “I was wrong” and walk away.

The real important issue, which Creationists repeatedly refuse to do, is to make a falsifiable claim. Honestly, this isn’t that hard. The Bible says something happened, go and find it. The flood is probably the easiest to check for since it happened EVERYWHERE. Make your claim and test it. Is it wrong? Then you’re wrong. If it’s right then the evidence supports you. It doesn’t mean you’re RIGHT, though. A statement is only as correct as the evidence supporting it. Over time, as more and more evidence accumulates (if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc.) then you can more and more strongly affirm the truth of your statement.

But they’ll never do that. They won’t do it because too much is at stake. They know (a) they won’t be able to prove it, and (b) they stand to lose everything when they’re proven wrong.

Let’s all be honest with one another: The real application of Creationism is to solely support and advocate religion. And the real application of religion is to fit in nicely with the common fears and uncertainties about reality that is inherent in humankind. There are no practical uses for Creationism or Religion beyond that.