Fundamentalists use the creation stories in the Bible to construct what they misname as "Creation Science" in opposition to Evolution and the known, long history of the universe. However, there are two creation stories in the Bible--and they differ in significant details. These differences in the two accounts have some important implications for the fundamentalist's belief in the literal truth of the Bible. In fact, these differences prove that belief to be wrong.
"How can God be both a perfect being and the creator of the universe? Doesn't the fact that he created the world imply that he had a need or want? Otherwise, why would he bother creating anything at all? But then, if he had a need that implied the existence of the universe in order to be fulfilled, it seems he is not perfect: he lacks something. But by definition, a perfect being could not lack anything. So if the universe exists, God is not perfect, so God does not exist."
Creationists claim that science cannot demonstrate evolution in the lab before their eyes. Creationists demand that they need this kind of proof if they are to accept evolution. Gosling sets the record straight.
"It is misguided to regard the growth of Creationism as a major threat to Western civilization. On the contrary, Creationism is exactly what we can expect to see from a collapsing religion. It's last-ditch defensive behavior—the equivalent of a hedgehog rolling into a ball. It's what's left of Christianity when all the behavioral precepts have been discarded. It is belief for the sake of belief. So if you're an atheist, please don't waste too much energy on Creationism."
"Answers in Genesis" (AiG) is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry which focuses on providing answers to questions surrounding the biblical book of Genesis, and on exposing the alleged "bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas." "AiG teaches that 'facts' don't speak for themselves, but must be interpreted." But, as Nick Covington demonstrates, AiG gets it wrong.
"This is presented as science. There is no method to it. There is no predictivity, no falsifiability, no plausibility, no consistency. It is not science. It is not a philosophy. It is not even a theology. It is a waste of my time."
What better to teach, in a science class, than the science of "intelligent" design? What better way is there to expose the fraud of ID than to begin by enlightening our children to its factual emptiness? What educator would not relish this opportunity to inform?
