Atheism Central for Secondary School Students

"If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction."

Judith Hayes, In God We Trust: But Which One? (Madison, WI: FFRF, 1997), p.

"Another point important to recognize is that the creation was 'mature' from its birth. It did not have to grow or develop from simple beginnings. God formed it full-grown in every respect, including even Adam and Eve as mature individuals when they were first formed. The whole universe had an 'appearance of age' right from the start. It could not have been otherwise for true creation to have taken place. 'Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them' (Genesis 2:1)."

Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, (General edition, second edition, El Cajon, CA: Master, 1985), p. 210.

This is what the creationist say.

"I honesty believe that in my lifetime we will see a country once again governed by Christians . . . and Christian values. What Christians have got to do is take back this country, one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time, and one state at a time."

Ralph Reed, Executive Director of the Christian Coalition

"No miracle has ever taken place under conditions which science can accept. Experience shows, without exception, that miracles occur only in times and in countries in which miracles are believed in, and in the presence of persons who are disposed to believe them."

Ernest Renan, 1863

"We are the products of editing, rather than of authorship."

George Wald, U.S. biochemist "The Origin of Optical Activity," in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 69 (1957)

"If the biblical account of creation in Genesis isn't true, how can we trust the rest of the Bible?"

Beverly LaHaye, a biblical literalist and president of Concerned Women for America

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."

David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 1748

A brain-twister but worth thinking through.

Before you start:

Epistemology: from the Greek episteme = knowledge
The study of the nature of knowledge: how do we know what we know? are there things we cannot know for sure? So an epistemology is a way of knowing what the world is like.

"God in the gaps" approach - the idea that what science doesn't know is the bit that is explained by the existence of god(s).

Three Points About Creationism

Creationism is a doctrine that comes in many guises. There's biblical creationism and scientific creationism, and there's literal creationism and liberal creationism. The differences are superficial, and all variants share blind faith in the same curious little story from an anonymous compilation of ancient myths. It is possible, therefore, to treat them all as one and to reject them all as one.

Here are three brief points about debate between the theories of creation and evolution that support rejecting creation after only cursory examination. Creationism should be denied a seat at the table without being given time to preach its details.

One

Creation and evolution are each representative of a broad epistemology. Framing the issue of the origins and diversity of life as a contest or debate between creation and evolution disguises the point. The real issue is whether a naturalistic epistemology or a supernaturalistic epistemology is correct.

Evolution is a theory that is part of a naturalistic epistemology. Its knowledge is natural. It owes its existence (like every successful scientific theory) to a single virtue: it is the best explanation of nature. Nature imposes itself on it, and it unites and simplifies natural evidence. Accepting (or rejecting) a naturalistic theory requires only empirical observation and analysis -- evidence that can be accepted on its own merits. Therefore, naturalistic theories are persuasive on their own merits. They use known data to explain unknown processes. In other words, naturalistic theories attempt to explain the unknown by the known.

Creation is a theory that is part of a supernaturalistic epistemology. Its knowledge transcends nature. Its knowledge is not obtained from the natural world. It is imposed on nature, thus making it more complicated. Accepting it requires faith because there is not any evidence that makes it persuasive. Only natural evidence does not require faith and can be accepted on its own merits. Therefore, supernaturalistic theories are not persuasive on their own merits. Nor can they be fully understood. In other words, supernaturalistic theories attempt to explain the unknown by the unknowable.

The issue is not which theory is superior. The issue is which epistemology is superior. To decide, we must use reason. "Reason is not one tool of thought among many, it is the entire toolbox." Reason supports only a naturalistic epistemology. Simply because it is not a naturalistic theory, creation must be rejected.

Two

Creation and evolution are not theories with equal merit. Creationists discuss them as if they were. This is deception, stupidity or lunacy -- pick one.

Evolution is scientific theory and fact. It is verifiable and falsifiable. It makes predictions that have proven true. It is observable both in laboratories and in nature. It is open to public scrutiny and contentious debate. It is open to change and improvement. It has practical application to other sciences. It is explicit and rigorous. It is an incomplete theory with the capacity to expand its (already vast) explanatory power.

Creation is none of these things. It is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. It has no predictive or explanatory power. It cannot be observed, scrutinized or questioned. It is static and incapable of improvement -- it can only be "reunderstood." It is a complete theory, but because it is vague, ambiguous and subject to interpretation, it is incomprehensible. It has no practical application to other sciences. In fact, the following fields of knowledge would have to be overhauled to be made consistent with creationism: anthropology, astronomy, biology, botany, chemistry, geology, geophysics, meteorology, paleontology, philosophy, physics, psychology, sociology, world history and zoology.

This is not an example of a contest between competing theories. It is a silly question of which is more rational: science or pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

Three

Creation and evolution are not alone, and they are not opposites. It is not the case that criticism of one provides support to the other. Creationist argument often (always?) consists solely of attacks on evolutionary theory. Even if we assume that these arguments have merit, they add no strength to the creationist position.

The creationist strategy is called "dualism." The argument has value only if (a) these are the only two possible theories, or (b) the theories are diametric opposites. First, (a) is incorrect. If the creation story in the Old Testament is a viable explanation, many equally viable creation stories must also be considered (for example, these). All have equal merit. Second, (b) is obviously incorrect. Theories simply cannot be opposites. Therefore, the truth or falsity of evolution does not make creation more convincing. Dualism is rhetorical subterfuge and nothing more. A complete rebuttal is simply, "So what?" At best, its criticism demonstrates the incompleteness of our understanding of the world.

Creationists cry, "Success! There are gaps in your theory, so you must believe ours." This so-called "god in the gaps" approach, besides being inherently illogical as dualist, only substitutes faith in a supernatural being for honest ignorance. It does not increase our knowledge or reduce the number of questions we have. It actually increases our ignorance by introducing another unknown (worse: unknowable) entity. This is unreasonable. The reasonable response to gaps in a theory is to close them by expanding, modifying or replacing the theory with one that has greater explanatory power (although the replacement option is extreme and revolutionary -- see Kuhn). In this way, evolution has itself "evolved" dramatically since Darwin and others proposed it 85 years before the discovery of DNA. The gaps are closing. Naturally.

Dov Wisebrod

"I can give you several examples of new species that have emerged within human observation. The best example that I can give you is the butterfly, the genus of butterfly known as Hedylypta. Hedylypta is a genus of butterfly that feeds on various plants. It's endemic to the Hawaiian Islands, which means it's only found there. And there turn out to be two species of Hedylypta with mouthparts that only allow them -- only allow them to feed on bananas. Now why is that significant? It is significant because bananas are not native to the Hawaiian Islands. They were introduced about 1,000 years ago by the Polynesians -- we know this from the written records of the Hawaiian Kingdom -- and what that means is that by mutation and natural selection, these two species have emerged on the Hawaiian Islands within the last 1,000 years. And I think that's a very good case in point."

Ken Miller, "Resolved: That evolutionists should acknowledge creation" Firing Line, 4 December 1997, p. 24.

"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average. Energy fluctuations out of nothing create short-lived particle-antiparticle pairs, which is why the vacuum is not emptiness but a sea of transient particles. An uncaused beginning, even out of nothing, for spacetime is no great leap of the imagination."

Taner Edis, "Is Anybody Out There?"