Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Responding to an Angry Creationist

When it comes down to the basic element of the laws of physics, it can be hard to understand how and why everything comes into play. You ask, “who set those laws?” But complexity doesn’t equate to supernaturalism. Science doesn’t claim to know everything but it has made some pretty good logical conclusions about the things we are a little hazy about. It is also open to further discovery and amendment if need be, something that religion refuses to do.

I apologize if my tone may seem rather pithy but I must be blunt to get my point across quickly. I couldn't necessarily agree that you're talking science because your motive is religion. As a Young-Earth Creationist you disagree with the consensus of modern science! The concepts you discredit are not mere theories but established facts that have withstood the processes of scientific scrutiny. Additionally, it is evident that you’re knowledge base is severely outdated (as I’ve pointed out many times before) and your worldview is heavily biased by religion (two things that do not mix). You poke and stick god in holes in cosmological and biological data because they are contrary to a 2,500-1500 year old collection of allegorical literature. Is it coincidence that you accept the rest of the scientific claim? If you believe that the earth is six thousand years old and that man was supernaturally assembled from mud and woman from man’s rib then either your education took you nowhere or you took your education nowhere. As you are a science-denier your credentials hold no credibility to me because you choose blind belief over freedom of thought. There is CERTAINLY much more evidence supporting the current scientific model than there is for talking snakes, tower of Babel, and virgin births. In comparison, this is not only embarrassing, this is mythology.

Secondly you need to be aware that this is not a polemic argument. Simply because you find the current scientific deductions faulty does not mean that your side of the argument is proven true by default. This is a multifaceted investigation on a multitude of events and not a court hearing to render a simple guilty or not guilty on the whole. You may not subscribe to the current ideas at hand but you don’t have the benefit of the doubt either. You have yet to present any evidence supporting spiritualism and supernatural events.

Lastly, in our past debates I have taken only one perspective of this argument and that is in the defense of science. There are other schools of thought which I have yet open to refute your position by way of religious history in the etic perspective, philosophy, and a plain old-fashioned objective analysis. The absurdities, dictatorship and hypocrisies (not to mention the horrific crimes committed in the name of god) claimed not only by your religion but by many around the world can and have been reduced to man’s rudimentary attempts at understanding our surrounding world. How poorly man lived and struggled until the era of modern science paved the way for progress and unparalleled growth for the benefit of humanity.

At some point in time one must let go of mythology and exert one’s own volition in coping with the whole of the world. Faith may be a heightened sense of hope and inspiration but it does not render medical attention, psychiatric treatment, epidemiology, tactical response to catastrophes, design of high-yielding crops, connecting the world with travel and information, assert higher thinking of ethics and morality, and last I checked it doesn’t land man on the moon either. I submit to you that this is not an arrogant view but of a realistic one. You may keep you talking snakes but as for myself I will resort to the old Polish Proverb: Not my circus, not my monkeys.