I’m always a little confused when I run across a reasonably intelligent human being who also believes in creationism. Today, for example, I found an article by Ed Reep, a senior at Rutgers University. Rutgers is a good school, right?
Either way, Reep argues that, by providing evidence for god, he can set the stage for an easily-proven case for creationism.
In order to show the merit of creationism, I must first show that belief in God has merit, which is a far easier task. God’s existence, after all, is the best explanation for any supernatural phenomenon that might exist, so in order to reasonably demonstrate the existence of God, all I would have to do is reasonably demonstrate the existence of supernatural phenomena.
How do we know that god’s existence is the best explanation for supernatural phenomenon? And which god are we even talking about? I have a preference for Jove, the Roman equivalent of Zeus, but I somehow doubt that Mr. Reep is talking about my beloved Jove.
All right, Ed, bring on the evidence.
I can spend hundreds of thousands of pages describing events that have unquestionably occurred that cannot be reasonably explained by anything other than the existence of God, but considering humans’ often skeptical nature, the best possible way to prove the existence of supernatural phenomena is, of course, to demonstrate such things. That’s not easy to do through an article. Please take my word for it.
So, now we’re just supposed to take your word for it? What the hell, man?
I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t you take the word of every single working biologist on planet earth?
What else you got?
Now, starting with the assumption that God exists,
Come on, dude. First you want me to take your word for the existence of supernatural phenomena, and now we’re just going to assume that god exists? When do we get to the part where you make an actual argument?
Sure, there are some fossils that seem to represent intermediary stages between some creatures, but these could easily be extinct unique creatures. We scarcely have fossils for all the supposed evolutionary stages after all, and for many creatures, there are no “intermediaries.” Sure, there are genetic similarities between humans and other creatures, but why wouldn’t that also be the case if they were created? Sure, a lot of traits in humans and others creatures seem well-adapted to their environments, but that could equally be evidence for creation. Consider also negative adaptations like blindness. The fact of the matter is that all the evidence that exists for evolution is easily consistent with creation, and a decent amount of that evidence for evolution is also evidence for creation.
Let’s not forget that the geological distribution of fossils is arranged from more simplistic for more complex. Or that we can actually measure the genetic differences between species. Or that we can physically see evolution happening in ring species and viruses.
The vast majority of evidence for evolution cannot just be arbitrarily ignored by saying “god made it that way.” Especially considering that we haven’t even established the existence of god yet.
Reep actually does admit that evolution and atheism are both reasonable stances if “you’ve never ever seen a miracle before,” which is extremely convenient for me, because I contend that no one has ever seen a miracle.
Just because you can’t explain something doesn’t mean that it’s magical.