Creationism, the unbelieving "science"

[mahnmut]

The closest to a decent argument [Creationism] can make is that no one can know for certain what happened at the beginning of time, the Earth, and Man. #

Oops... BUT this is not the argument that Creationism makes. Creationism invents a whole set of arguments and forged facts that it calls "evidence", to explain a pre-decided set of beliefs. First, that's not how science works, i.e. it's not real science. And second, try to tell a Creationist, like Ken Ham for example, that "we don't know" what happened (which is the agnostic view, not the theistic), and they'll give you a weird look, and then try to writhe away from their words by saying they didn't really mean what they said.

Btw isn't it weird how Creationists suddenly turn into Thomas the Unbeliever when it comes to things that contradict their paradigm?

Comments

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Its weird that this is happening in the 21st century. Maybe there's still hope for humankind but i'm growing pessimistic :p

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not really when you consider that fundamentalism is religion adapted to the Enlightenment but ending up with all the bad and none of the good.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I've been feeling very pessimistic about humankind all weekend. Hopefully with good rest and vitamins I'll be better tomorrow.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Nah, you are just conflating all creationists with weirdos like me who are young earthers ;) Most creationists (that I know or know of, and it's a lot actually) believe in intelligent design, which down to bare bones, just means God did it.