The Evidence Race

6 June 2006  

I think it’s amazing that there an increasing tendency for those of faith to claim that there’s more and more evidence (e.g. intelligent design/creationism) to the answers of life, the universe and everything, when in fact no new evidence for any of it has emerged in the past however-many years (or whenever it was that the church leaders of the day for any particular religion decided what was ’scripture’ and what was not).

Take intelligent design: this pseudo-science (although nothing of the sort) tries to debunk scientific evidence with opinion, bluster and general nay-saying. There’s no evidence for any of it.

I was listening to a podcast of an interview with Kent ‘Dr Dino’ Hovind the other day, and every single one of his arguments was based upon bone fide scientific articles, taken out of context, and then he attempted to debunk them based on semantic jiggery-pokery, or just ignoring the actual conclusions that were reached. However, at no point in this interview, even when asked directly, did he even try to pretend that he had any actual evidence.

So, my question to the creationists is this: what evidence do you have, apart from the contradictory nonsense of the first two chapters of the book of genesis (or whatever your cultural creation myth of choice is)?

  • lack of specifics in past scientific research is not applicable, as this is simple straw-man nonsense.
  • “because god did it” is not evidence; it’s opinion.
  • “because the pope/bishop/imam/Bush/my granny says so, and they wouldn’t lie!” is not evidence; their authority is no more than that of myself.
  • ‘holy book’ references are not evidence; one can read almost anything into the bible if you want to ‘interpret’ it enough.
  • personal “revelations” are not evidence; they’re purely subjective and can’t be experienced by anyone else.
  • ‘irreducible complexity’ is not an argument; there is no evidence that evolution cannot have arrived at the same conclusion. It is also only opinion.

Bring us evidence - real evidence. Something tangible, something measurable, something observable and repeatable - something that can be tested by anyone who has the wherewithall to do so. Then you’ll be allowed take part in the discussion.

Otherwise you’re out of the race. Sit on the bench, be quiet, and contemplate your navel.

This article was originally posted at In Defence of Reality.

Possibly related posts:

  1. Channel 4: The Genius of Charles Darwin Starting next week, Channel 4 in the UK is screening a three-part documentary series on the scientific legacy of Charles...
  2. Hitchens on eyes Christopher Hitchens lets loose with a bit more of that fighting talk that he’s (in)famous for in his article Losing...
  3. BBC: Scientist/priest says teachers are scared to teach evolution Professor Michael Reiss, scientist, priest and head of science at London’s Institute of Education, has written a new book aimed...
  4. Teach the controversy! If you’re a creationist/IDer, then you may be interested in these other scientific theories which you can use to beat...
  5. The ‘arrogance’ of science I see, especially in theistic literature (as opposed to scripture — but it’s there too), that science is often denounced...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments