FREE ESSAY ON THE PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTIONISTS' PROBLEMS

THE PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTIONISTS' PROBLEMS

The Problem with Evolutionists' Problems
"The Creationist battle cry can be stated thus: Public ignorance is Creationist bliss."
This is just one of the many attacks made against Creationist in Richard Young's article,
"Why Creation 'Science' Must Be Kept Out of the Classroom." Throughout the article he
uses many hasty generalizations about creationist theories. The first hasty
generalizations Young makes are untrue statements about the Bible. He then uses states
beliefs that are true for only of a few Christians with extremist ideas, not the common
Christians view of Creationism. Young continues attacking Creationist by making more
hasty generalizations, and begging the question on why Creationism is a weak argument
compared to evolutionism. Finally, he tops all this off by attacking the Creationist
theories in using false analogies. 
The first hasty generalization that Young makes is an attack on the Creationists' views.
He claims that Creationists are extremists because they take the Bible literally. The
reason why he has a problem with taking the Bible literally is because of his accusations
of the Bible. He claims that the Bible says "that the earth is flat, that all space
flight has been hoaxed, that the Sun orbits the stationary earth," and other statements
of this nature. The problem with this accusation is that the Bible never makes any of
these claims.
Young then continues attacking Creationist by saying:
It is precisely this loss of faith [not taking the Bible literally], alleged to have been
caused by the proliferation of 'evolutionary thought,' that the creationist hold
responsible for all the evils of the world, including 'sex education, alcohol, suicide,
women's liberation, terrorism, homosexuality, inflation, socialism, racism and dirty
books.' Judge Braswell Dean, a Georgia lobbyist for Creationism, lays an equally
comprehensive spectrum of crimes on the doorstep of evolution: ...this monkey mythology
of Darwin is the cause of abortions, permissiveness, promiscuity, perversions,
pregnancies, prophylactics, pornotherapy[sic], pollution, poisoning and proliferation of
crimes.
These so-called "Creationists" may have made these statements, but it is obvious that
they have misunderstood what the Bible says. The Bible states that sin originated from
Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and problems have existed ever since then. The
problems in our society have nothing to do with the "monkey mythology" that the judge
states.
From these points of hasty generalizations, Young continues making more hasty
generalizations and even begs the question of the validity of creationism as a science.
First he says that Creationism does not offer any explanatory or predictive capabilities
that the theory of evolution has. This is not true. In fact, Creationism has a great
explanation for where the earth came from and how it will end up; the book of Genesis
explains how God created it and the book of Revelations predicts how it will end up. 
After this statement, Young says that "What the Creationists present as a science are in
fact pseudoscience[sic], much like palmistry, astrology and the alchemy of old. As a
scientific alternative to evolution, Creationism is a dismal failure." Young does not
give any reasons why; he leaves that question up to us to figure out. Creationism has no
similarities to the things to which Young compares them. Creationism is not some cheesy
science used to predict the future of somebody's life, and it is not some old science
that has been proven wrong. 
As a matter of fact, Creationism has many valid arguments. For example, Ken Clark, writer
of the Creation Outreach web-site, makes the point that billions of fish are found in the
fossil record with scales, fins, intact. They were trapped suddenly and did not have time
to rot or get eaten by scavengers. This does not happen normally. The great Genesis Flood
of Noah and the Ark is a good explanation for these happenings and is one of many
arguments for Creationism.
Later on in Young's article he uses false analogies to argue against Creationists
problems with evolutionary theory. He questions the Creationist understanding of the word
'theory' and then compares the evolutionist theory to that of the theory of music and
Newton's laws. Young says that the only difference between the evolutionist theory and
Newton's laws are that in Newton's time it was more fashionable to call theories laws. 
This use of comparing theories is illogical; there is a huge difference between the
theory of music, Newton's laws, and theory of evolution. The theory of music is a term
for the study of musical concepts and is accepted because it can be proved, same with
Newton's laws. Newton's laws are not called laws just because that was more fashionable
in his day, they are called laws because they are proven facts, and whether or not one
believes in them they do exist. This is not the case with the theory of evolution
otherwise there would not be any debate on whether it is true.
As one is able to see through the problems with Young's arguments against Creationism,
the Creationist battle cry is not an attempt to prey on the weak of mind. He tends to
pull false statements about Creationism out of his butt. Throughout Young's argument he
commits fallacy after fallacy. From his many hasty generalizations to using false
analogies and begging the question, his whole argument against Creationism is based on
biased opinions. 
Bibliography
Clark, Ken. "Creation Outreach." Creation Outreach Homepage. 
1997:n. pag. Online. Microsoft Internet Explorer. 
16 February 1999.
The New American Bible. Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Producers, Inc., 1991.
Young, Richard. "Why Creation 'Science' Must Be Kept Out of the 
Classroom." The Humanist Association of Hamilton-Burlington Homepage. n. pag. Online.
Microsoft Internet Explorer. 
26 February 1999.