Rebuttal for Creationists – Did God Use Evolution – Introduction

This was something I have been working on for a fair while. In fact it’s something I have wanted to do for ages but lacked the drive to begin.

What I hope to do here is a series of posts as a rebuttal to Creationist Literature.

But Avi! You say! No one fights Creationists Anymore! No one will read your article! It is a fools errand! You would be better off photographing your dog doing something cute and slant it towards a religious angle.

Well? Here is the problem. Creationists stopped fighting US because we make them look like fools. It doesn’t mean they have stopped spreading their bullshit. In fact if anything they have gotten away with a lot more. Rather than try to flog creationism on an equal footing to science they have eroded away at the teaching of science. Often what is being taught is the most shambolic representation of science to children.

So I figured I should field Did God Use Evolution from Answers in Genesis. Written by no other than the father of the German Creationist Movement. Dr. Werner Gitt.

The theory of evolution is currently so widely established that it could be described as the all-inclusive and even the only philosophy of the 20th century.

It’s a bad sign when you start your book with a mistake.

The Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory to explain Evolution which is a Scientific Fact. It is not philosophy and purely exists in the realm of evidence.

And really? Marxism, Post Modernism, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Neopragmatism and indeed Epistemology. I am not even in philosophy and I can name a few philosophical ideas. I honestly think that the author (Dr. Werner Gitt) is trying to sneak the notion that.

1. Evolution is a Philosophy and doesn’t exist in a realm of proof

2. There are no other philosophical branches out there.

The idea of self-organization from the simple to the more complex has been commonly appropriated—even in disciplines foreign to biological evolution. The development of computers is often falsely referred to as the “evolution of computers,” even though the current high-performance computers are the result of intensive research by many brilliant minds. They have been planned, constructed, and produced on purpose, and are clearly not the result of an evolutionary process.

Yes, however that only applies if we use the biological term of evolution rather than say the colloquial usage of the word which means “A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.”. It is a synonym with development when used in this context. I understand Werner is NOT a native speaker to English but in English context of usage of words is important.

He was a lion in battle doesn’t mean he physically turned into a lion during fights.

If you cannot tell the difference between technological usage of a term and scientific usage of a term then we are going to stumble before we begin. I am afraid you don’t grasp the gravity of the situation.

Otherwise you don’t believe in Mathematical Evolution which is the extraction of a root of a quantity either.

Theology, too, was affected; evolutionary ideas have even been carried into biblical exegesis.

We will show below why evolutionistic thought is completely foreign to the Bible. This book is aimed predominantly at Christian readers who might be inclined to accept some version of theistic evolution. Over and above that, the book is set out in such a way that skeptical readers may also be guided to some decision.

The Internet is also completely foreign to the Bible yet we still see Creationists on it.

No the thing is Evolution is inimical to idea of the Bible being the exact History of mankind. And nothing is as much as an affront to Creationists as Biology because it disputes the divinity of Adam and Eve and indeed the whole 6000 year old Earth. If you believe that the Bible is entirely Canon rather than Allegory then if even one tiny bit of it collapses then the whole thing comes crumbling down.

What this means in reality is that Creationists have to make people believe in the same thing as they do because if you tell a lie a sufficient amount of times then the lie carries the same weight as the truth.

The basic assumptions of science are discussed in a separate chapter. This should enable the reader to recognize which basic assumptions he automatically accepts when he decides for or against creation or evolution.

Use of the term “the theory of evolution” is intentionally avoided, because, according to the standards of scientific theory, evolution is a philosophical doctrine and not a scientific theory. For the same reason, we do not refer to creation theory, but to the biblical doctrine of creation. Creation research concerns itself with deducing models from physical reality, which are based on fundamental biblical statements. A total of 20 objections (OB1 to OB20) against theistic evolution are discussed in this book. In addition to valid criticisms of evolution, the alternative, creation, is increasingly expounded more clearly in recent literature, such as [B4, E2, G3, G5, G7, G8, G10, G11, J2, S3, S4, S5]. This book also refers repeatedly to this very sustainable alternative.

Okay and since this is a spread out argument I shall respond in kind with rebuttals. (If I don’t, keep kicking me till I do).

But we do need to keep producing articles even if it is a ludicrous prospect that doesn’t really get many people reading. Because we are preaching to the choir when we should be punching at the lines.

         The author is an information scientist, but the discussions on information concepts in chapter 6 should be readily understood by the layman. In the last chapter, scientific and biblical objections against evolution culminate in the exposition of ten dangers inherent in theistic evolution. Many quotations expose the anti-biblical nature of such a viewpoint.

And yes I understand that we have made these arguments before. You aren’t doing anything new.

You see I do feel we are slowly moving into the nadir of Atheist writing. We do not reward original content as much as we used to. A pithy one liner attached to a picture of Tigger (My dog) would get more hits than this. If I still had Loki (my cat) I would probably get even more hits.

And I understand but here is the thing. The creationists did not vanish when you stopped talking to them. They are still out there spreading their stupid on a daily basis and trying to insert Jesus into Children via more surreptitious routes. And rather than fight science head on they are more willing to do things in a more round about way. They erode the education of science so people don’t understand the world around them. They force science to teach improperly. They have tried to and often succeeded in hamstringing science education to make it as bad as the kind of education that would come from teaching religion as a purely canonical subject. It is creating a nation of people so blinded to actual science that the majority of science is completely alien to the people who benefit from it. It is very short term thinking and it harms thousands of young children in their quest for an actual understanding of the world around them.

So I covered his Introduction. Would people be interested in reading a dissection (Very Post-Modern!) this silly book that’s being flogged to children and “scared parents”?