We're in big trouble on our trip to the Creation "Museum", people. We're going on 7 August, and on that very same day, they are planning to present…
THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF CREATION!!!
What is the Ultimate Proof of Creation, you might ask?
There is a defense for creation that is powerful, conclusive, and has no true rebuttal. As such, it is an irrefutable argument--an "ultimate proof" of the Christian worldview. This presentation will equip you to engage an unbeliever, even a staunch atheist, using proven techniques.
Holy crap! It's a trap! I'm going to be bringing along a whole mob of young atheists from the Secular Student Alliance, and this speaker, Jason Lisle, is going to be like Darth Vader among the younglings. I might be able to put up a fight against Emperor Ham, just like Samuel Jackson, but then his apprentice will show up and zap, blam, zowee, I'll be chopped up and blown out a window. We're doomed. DOOOOOOOMED.
At least I insist on being informed before going to my ignominious fate. The first chapter of the Ultimate Proof of Creation is available online, so I read it cautiously, fearing that I would see science demolished with an irrefutable argument.
Wait a minute.
This thing is complete garbage. It's the same old routine that Answers in Genesis always trots out: "We're using the same evidence," they say, "only we're just interpreting it differently. We're just as sciencey as you are!" Only they aren't. They're leaving out all the evidence that contradicts their views, and twisting the bits they want in inappropriate ways. And then they make stuff up! Here's an approach I've been seeing a lot from creationists lately: they invent scientific "laws" and then declare that evolution is unscientific because it violates those "laws". The most common one is the so-called "law of biogenesis" that dictates that life can only come from other life, but here's a pair that Lisle pulls out of his butt:
There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no
known sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter.When its progress along the chain of transmission events is
traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental
source, the mind of the sender.
These are quite simply false. Chance can generate new information in genetics, so we know the first law is bogus, and since we can trace a useful piece of genetic information back to unguided mutations, we know the second is yet more baloney.
I don't think I'm too worried about the Ultimate Proof of Creation anymore. I suspect it is going to be more like this.
- Log in to post comments