How a 29-page booklet converted me to creationism

After nearly 38 years of life... being born into a christian family, graduating nearly at the top of my class at a christian university (why christian? -because it was close), and being surrounded by "believers" at home, school, and work... the idea of the existance of a god to me has always seemed laughable. --Except for the fact that I was never allowed to laugh. And the idea of "creationism" would be totally hilarious if not for the fact that so many people actually buy it. I'd be glad to believe some part of me will exist after death -- but like Richard Dawkins says, you can't just make yourself believe something so unbelievable with no evidence.

So there I was, quite sure my atheist and evolutionist beliefs were well-founded in reason and logic. I've read the bible, Dawkins, Darwin, Dennett, etc. I've read and heard the debates and my confidence in science, evolution, and atheism hasn't waivered... until today...

What event caused such an abrupt departure from my previous beliefs which I had so carefully based in logic? A simple 29-page booklet arrived in my mailbox today titled "The Scientific Case Against Evolution". I didn't know there were so many good reasons to believe in creationism and not in evolution:

The Scientific Case Against Evolution
The Verdict is In!
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Copyright 2001 - Institute for Creation Research

Belief in evolution is... a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution.

The lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe.

There are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs".

Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science... in fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy--also known as the second law of thermodynamics--stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

Evolution is Religion - Not Science:
Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientifc debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion.

Atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true. Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God. Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

I don't know if it was the "dats" and "cogs" argument in particular, or simply all the very scientific information contained in this booklet that did it -- but by golly they've proven to me that most all the world's leading scientists are not only wrong, but are actually sparing no expense to run their own anti-creationism agendas. (Evil scientists...)

New scientific methods:
- Something is true unless and until it can be disproven.
- If a scientific method fails to account for absolutely everything observed, it is perfectly reasonable to invent a phenomena infinitely more complex and unexplainable to explain it.

I can't believe that even these people believe that evolutionary scientists decline debates with creationists because they can't win. Why not have a press conference to debate the existance of unicorns and Santa Clause while we're at it? --I'm sure almost none of them would bother at all if it weren't for the fact that religion is infinitely more dangerous than unicorns & Santa. (I wonder why they didn't bring up the "banana argument"? Hmmmm....)

"Creationist scientist"... that term never fails to make me laugh. I think they would be better served to try to stay out of science... it's just not working out. The undebatable "faith" argument seems to work much better.

Anyway, my aunt sent this to me in her Christmas card this year. Her note said, "You probably won't appreciate this since I've heard you are leaning toward atheism..." I actually DID appreciate it and thought some of you might get a laugh out of it too. (In her defense, if I thought my niece might spend eternity burning in hell, I'd probably bother to send her a pamphlet too.)

I hope you all have a happy new year!
Thanks for being there to always remind me that EVERYONE isn't delusional -- it just seems like it...

Thanks for reading,

Views: 48


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Chiropteran on December 31, 2008 at 1:47am
"Argument of assertion"...because I said so. Haha, those crazy kids.
Comment by Jude Johnson on December 30, 2008 at 11:26pm
Thanks for the links Daniel -- very interesting animals! It seems they may be the "strawmen" the creationists were speaking of...

Thanks for sharing that link, Larian. The comment, "it’s difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into" is all too true.
Comment by Larian LeQuella on December 30, 2008 at 10:59pm
You may enjoy this essay from Dr Phil Plait, the new president of JREF:
Comment by Jude Johnson on December 30, 2008 at 5:34pm
"Atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true. Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God. Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion."

-- Does this mean that not believing in leprechauns is a religion too? And bigfoot? The ever-popular orbital teapot? -Then sign me up, I guess. (At least I can still sleep in on Sundays...)

Also: I wonder if scientists used this same "arbitrary system" to make jets fly? And to create artificial hearts? If I were a creationist, I don't think I'd trust those self-serving scientists who just make things up arbitrariliy with my life!

The aunt who sent me this is married to a brilliant brain surgeon! (They're around 70 now and retired.) It is possible he doesn't believe in evolution? I know I would want any surgeon operating on my brain to be one who accepts scientific facts about the human body... scary...
Comment by Totem on December 30, 2008 at 11:19am
The creationist ridiculous argument is the reason I have evolve text inside of the ichthus which has become a tool user with legs for my picture. A few months ago I read a very good book by Michael Shermer, Why Darwinism Matters. He was a former creationist debater who took some classes to better present his case and wound up becoming a champion for evolution. He is also the founding publisher of the Skeptic Society.
Comment by Joshua Dolan on December 30, 2008 at 2:42am
No one has ever seen evolution happen? You mean all that jazz in my 8th grade science book about fruit flies developing a tolerance to pesticides over many generations of breeding survivors to exposure was just made up? I've been had! Quick somebody hand me a bible!

Bleh. I have people like this in my family too. At age six my cousins were trying to "save" me. I asked "Save me from what?" I never could get my head around that.
Comment by Jennifer W on December 30, 2008 at 2:33am
What I think is funny is that the Creationists always attack Evolution. They don't use empirical basis and just ramble against evolution. It's like they WANT you to know that they are using propaganda!!

You NEVER hear a real scientist say: "Well this and that doesn't make sense, therefore Creationism is null and void." Matter of fact you may go through several hundred thousand textbooks about Evolution and it will not even mention anything about creationism, let alone attacking it!!

Evolution is science, and Creationism is religion with a phoney cheap plastic science mask.
Comment by j on December 30, 2008 at 12:52am
Dogma vs Evidence... Creationism chooses Dogma; Science picks Evidence.

"There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution." The old time religion said that 'man was special and unique, made in the image of God All Mighty." We should be alien compared to plants and animals, not similar by His Generic, Unimaginative Design.



Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service