The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[PatrickHenry]

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]

[Kevin Curry]

Asimov was always way too wordy.

[LibKill]

When the creationist 'scientists' have as many tons of fossil evidence for their view as REAL scientists have for evolution, then and only then will I give them a respectful hearing.

I'm waiting......

[ChicagoRepublican]

Thank god he was, since he used those words so well.

[Southack]

Dear Isaac,

"Why" do I think that some intelligent entity predates Man's existence?

Base 4 math.

You've got your A, C, G, and T bases paired up to comprise the instruction sets in the genes that reside inside DNA strands. To me, that's 0,1,2,3 = Base 4 math.

That's an order of magnitude of greater complexity than Binary math (something for which we don't see forming except with Intelligent Intervention). This math is how programming instructions are stored, replicated, and activated. In fact, not only does DNA store and replicate data, but it also interacts with a processing mechanism that handles programming instructions in a manner that is remarkably similar to how we currently have CPU's processing our instruction sets.

Moreover, we see evidence of code re-use in various other species.

If I saw Binary math representing programming subroutines in a piece of computer software, and knew nothing else about it, I would presume that it was an intelligent entity such as Man that created said program, rather than presuming that natural forces managed to eak out the program by pure chance.

Likewise, I make the same presumption about the Life that we see on our planet.

Evidence of God or at least an intelligence that pre-dates Man? Base 4 math in DNA.

Is this conclusive evidence? No.

Is it persuasive evidence? Perhaps to some, maybe even most.

Sadly for you, Isaac, your mind has already concluded that such evidence has no place in science. Your mind was already made up, and heaven help anyone who dares let such tangible facts get in your way...

[PatrickHenry]

A very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (from Scientific American).
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.
300 Creationist Lies.
Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
Creation "Science" Debunked.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 20].

[Arthur McGowan]

A pox on both their houses. Neither side gets it.

The necessity of an uncaused Creator is shown not by the design of the universe, but by the existence of the universe. The design of the universe is proof of a designer. But the existence of a universe filled with things which are of their nature contingent is proof enough of an uncaused, noncontingent Creator.

The Creationists make religion ridiculous, with the absurd notion that the STORY of Creation is the same as the FACT of Creation ex nihilo, which is all that Scripture teaches. God made the world by SAYING So, by a creative act. There is no indication in the OT or the NT that one of God's purposes in revelation was the teach us any scientific facts.

[Arthur McGowan]

BTW: All of this would be a non-issue if we would shut down the government schools. The prayer-in-school issue, the pledge issue, and the creationism issue, would all evaporate overnight.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The usual tiresome puffery from the evo's. "TA-TA-TA-TAA!! We've proved that naturalistic evolution is true -- look at our massive tome -- so don't bother to argue with us."

[AntiGuv]

How alarming! I generally have little more reaction beyond complacent derision for creationism, but this essay delivers a powerful wakeup call. If America slides inexorably back into the grips of creationist obscurantism, it will slip into the twilight much the same as the Ming and Qing dynasties oversaw China's demise in a past era. But, what to do?

Are we now, with all these examples before us, to ride backward into the past under the same tattered banner of orthodoxy? With creationism in the saddle, American science will wither. We will raise a generation of ignoramuses ill-equipped to run the industry of tomorrow, much less to generate the new advances of the days after tomorrow.

We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization, and those nations that retain opened scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simpleminded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish.

[longshadow]

BTW: All of this would be a non-issue if we would shut down the government schools. The prayer-in-school issue, the pledge issue, and the creationism issue, would all evaporate overnight.

I'll second that motion....

[ancient_geezer]

Bored?

[PatrickHenry]

All of this would be a non-issue if we would shut down the government schools.

Agreed. But taking on the teacher unions is at least as difficult as debating with the creationists.

[AntiGuv]

I'm uncertain I understand your point. Are you suggesting that both our mathematic principles & our genetic biology arise from the laws of physics? If so, you're most certainly correct...

[PatrickHenry]

Bored?

Not any more.

[VadeRetro]

The Bible says that God created the world in six days, and the Bible is the inspired word of God. To the average creationist this is all that counts...

The creationist leaders do not actually use that argument because that would make their argument a religious one, and they would not be able to use it in fighting a secular school system. They have to borrow the clothing of science, no matter how badly it fits, and call themselves "scientific" creationists.

It starts right here, becoming a Liar for the Lord. It's so obviously about what church you attend, but creationists can't admit that. Oh, no! It's about the science, really!

Like hell!

[AntiGuv]

Interesting that this was written in 1984, when the contemporary besiegement of school boards by creationists was in a relatively nascent state. It seems much more timely in the present setting than it should have two decades ago.

[PatrickHenry]

Interesting that this was written in 1984

Actually, it was written in 1981, but published in 1984. And the creationists haven't changed a word of their "science." They just get more strident.