You Can’t Polish a Turd: The Evolution of Creationism

The deluded staff over at the Intelligent Design website once again prove the validity of the textbook definition of insanity, which is repeating the same thing over and over while hoping for a different result every time.  Stubbornly, they continue to reinvent their religious propaganda in spite of continued court defeats, rejections by state school boards and worldwide refute of almost all their “research” by the global scientific community.  The have once again changed their definition of Intelligent Design, which was in itself a redefinition of “Creationism”.  Although these people are entitled to believe what they want, they are not entitled to their own facts.  The previous definition that appeared on their website defined Intelligent design as “a scientific theory which holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution”. The new explanation is as follows:

“Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection”

Let’s take a minute to examine their new approach to delusion…

Those of us who know better can argue against the supernatural aspect of this statement from the standpoint of reason, logic and the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer.  With that said, you will immediately notice a few things in their new explanation.  At first glance you might want to give them credit for exchanging “Scientific Theory” for “Scientific Research Process”, as their tripe is anything but a “Theory” in the scientific definitive.   Of course, they didn’t completely remove the word “theory” from their explanation.  They only moved it a little farther along.  That, coupled with the fact that there is nothing at all scientific about their research serves to negate any kudos they might have gained.

The inclusion of “scholars” is supposed to add an air of respect, but the attempt becomes moot when you consider that these scholars are actually theologians.  As well, while they still “seek evidence”, Evolutionary Theory already has an almost innumerable collection of evidence to support it’s validity, and more is consistently revealed on a regular basis.  The glaringly obvious absence of the words “chance-based” is likely due to an acquiescence to the fact that Evolution has nothing to do with “chance”.  However, using the word “undirected” only serves to solidify their delusion that a supernatural being is somehow responsible for the wonders of the universe.  I am happy, though, to see the change from “Darwin Evolutionism” to “Natural Selection”, with all due respect still going to Darwin, of course.

Still, none of this changes the fact that these people are still creationists that believe the fundamental operating force responsible for our existence is ‘magical’. In reality, science is study of natural forces only and ceases being science when it tries to explain phenomenon by means of the supernatural.  Creationism and “Intelligent Design” are a department of fundamental Christian apologetics and exist only to defend the biblical book of Genesis.  Creationism lacks any merit of truth, exposes the absurdity of  biblical mythology and abandons anything that even remotely approaching scientific research.  Creationist “investigation” takes place using almost solely literary references and not laboratory experimentation.  This results in horrifically inaccurate, misinformed and unscientific evidence against evolution.

Creationists try to prove their myths by attempting to disprove scientific evolutionary theory and ignoring almost everything connected with Cosmology. Their results are preposterous, and include the ridiculous notion that green plants existed before the sun and that the whole of life and nature came into existence not only in a very short time frame, but largely intact as we observe in the present day.  Their ignorance further purports a young earth that was once completely covered in water and anything that appears ancient was created to look that way by god. The nail in their coffin is the inclusion of  magic or magical events as part of their explanation of how everything came to be.

Thanks to dedicated scientists like Dr. Stephen Hawking, we already know so much about how the universe began via the “Big Bang” theory, and while the field of abiogenesis may be in it’s infancy, it already shows great promise in uncovering what creationists call “first cause”.  Science uses the unknown to propagate discovery.  Religion attributes the unknown to the supernatural.  Just because we don’t have an explanation does not mean “god did it”.

Both Cosmology and Evolutionary theory consists of vast bases of tested and proven knowledge.  The continuing flow of new information that is added to these knowledge bases make it inconceivable how anyone still believes in the bizarre details of the Genesis myth. It is almost scandalous that creationism survives. When given the choice between accepting something that is factual against something that is mythical, I will choose the factual.  Living your life according to myths and fairy tales is nothing short of childish.  You don’t have to be a scientist to know this.

  12 comments for “You Can’t Polish a Turd: The Evolution of Creationism

  1. Jeani
    July 12, 2010 at 10:47 am

    I completely agree with this article and appreciate that you’ve posted it. I also appreciate humor and hope you take the next part of my comment with a sense of humor. Regarding the headline, the Mythbusters showed on their show that you actually can polish a turd!!! .

  2. cameron davis
    July 12, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    “Just because we don’t have an explanation does not mean “god did it”.”

    this is my favorite anti-theist retort. I use it fairly often. It tends to confuse ‘fun’dies long enough to make them realize they’re in a logic loop, as long as i provide a bit of scientific evidence to back it up. They hate getting confused. Personally i find cognitive dissonance and dialectical anaylsis(ala Clausewitz-style) as a path to discovery to be rather useful, but not the religious fascists i’m forced to debate.

    keep up the great work, Al!!!!!

  3. July 12, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    Well said!

  4. July 12, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    Thanks, Anna. True, Cameron. Jeani, yes, you are correct, but much like the example given on Mythbusters, it’s not good for anything and it still stinks. 🙂

  5. flippertie
    July 12, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    Agree with the article – but as a grammar freak can I refer you to the difference between “your’s” and “yours”?

    Yours truly,

    😉

    Flip.

    http://en.allexperts.com/q/General-Writing-Grammar-680/f/grammar-mistakes.htm

  6. Sandman
    July 13, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Heyho bro!

    The logic loop you discuss is beautifully illustrated in the film Joan of Arc (aka The Messenger) in the scene at the end where the devil (Dustin Hoffman) messes with Joans head about her “visions” and her sword…. makes me smile very time.

    Do not be deluded by the Discoveroids. The clue is that the DI employs many more LAWYERS than scientists. It is a fast buck scheme pure and simple. Make money by selling books to dimwitted school boards. Make money off them when they end up in court. Following defeat get the legal beagles to do a rapid re-draft of the original book…sell it to school boards. Make more money off the resultant court case. Revise “theory” following defeat, rewrite book, re sell book, …. and so on and so on. Its just a smart way for some lawyers to make a fast buck whilst pissing on your Constitution and laughing all the way to the bank. Portraying themselves as defenders of the faith also serves to attract knock on business from faith heads and gets you headlines.

    At least we over the pond have passed laws ensuring that the filthy lie of Creationism/ID/whatever they call it next is NEVER taught in state schools in Europe (the EUP passed an education Directive a few weeks ago banning the teaching of ANY form of creationism and enforcing the teaching of evolution and ONLY evolution). The Discoveroids efforts to sneak ID in by the back door to UK schools has just been slammed down. Ahhhhhh shame.

    You do realise that we in Europe laugh our asses off at this stupidity dont you?

    You keep punching Al… you deliver flurries of knockout blows every time I read your page! To paraphrase Mr Thomas:

    Do not go gentle into that good night
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light!

    • July 13, 2010 at 7:25 am

      Sandman, I can always expect well thought out and wonderfully expressed replies from you. Muchas gracias!

      • Sandman
        July 14, 2010 at 10:45 am

        Hats off to you sir… you are a pip for making me use the grey matter

        here is a link to the clip I mean

        That man in black…. thats us.

  7. tony
    October 24, 2010 at 11:48 pm

    They may not be able to polish a turd, but they can roll it in glitter…

  8. Norm
    November 12, 2010 at 3:48 am

    Hmmm….
    You gentlemen and ladies seem to forget that some of your (our) greatest scientists were oh my, can we say it? – creationists and bible believing people – Newton and Faraday. There are many who love both science as a discipline and God as God.
    Later Folks

    • Sandman
      November 13, 2010 at 7:15 am

      Ah I love it! The old Newton Argument….

      well sparky, unfortunately, whilst Newton DID give us the basic framework for some aspects of physics, he also lived a long long time ago when being an atheist was as common as a blue moon.

      Newton, just for your information, also dabbled in alchemy and table knocking spiritualism attempts to talk to angels a la John Dee.

      Get it into your head….Newton died in 1727.

    • flippertie
      November 25, 2010 at 3:27 am

      Norm, to add to Sandman’s reply – can I remind you that the loving, compassionate, church would have had Newton burned at the stake had he not professed to be a true believer?

      You should also be aware of the ‘appeal to authority’ – just because Newton, faraday or A. N Other were believers does not mean they were right. No one is right about everything.

Leave a Reply