Questioning Creationism

I see by a recent Newsweek poll that 34% of college graduates accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Assuming they were taught to question and think for themselves in college what questions did they avoid (or evade) to come to such a conclusion? Since some questions were obviously not asked during the learning years here are a few to ponder and/or further avoid.

First of all a Biblical account requires a creator. If a creator can exist without being created by something else, why is it required that one believe everything else in existence except a creator has to undergo creation? And what exactly would have to be the nature of a creator? If he could create something from nothing would he not have to be able to visualize a nonexistent? But to visualize a nonexistent is to see what isn’t there or has ever been. This is palatable to 34% of college graduates?

Now there have been many arguments offered for the existence of a creator, but all have failed the test of logic. But this is not the ultimate refutation. The ultimate refutation is the burden of proof is on the people positing a creator. They can point to that which exists, but they cannot point to that which made something from nothing. Pointing to the words of ancient soothsayers can hardly qualify as proof. A college graduate who proves his case by hearsay has offered nothing concrete for another human to examine and confirm.

There is a statement from the Bible where the Creator says, “Let there be light”. An inquisitive mind would ask,” You mean there was a time when there was no light?” All light has a source ,so if first there was light, where did it come from?” You can hardly claim it came from the Creator as by popular accounts he has no material attributes.

“ And God said, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together under one place and let the dry land appear and it was so.”. This implies the world was first all water. But we have not found the other planets to be water. The known planets have only land and possibly some have a trace of water. Evidently this discrepancy never occurred to 34% of college graduates. And what of the ice on the polar caps? Was water and ice created simultaneously? Why no mention of ice or the fact that a cold climate was necessary for it’s existence? So many questions, so few questioners.

And then God created the animals and the birds and the fish and directed them to multiply. Why? Couldn’t he had created a balanced population? Did he not see that some animals would become extinct, some would overpopulate and some could not adapt to the variations in climate? And what did the predators eat if the population of their prey was sparse? Only 34% of the college graduates in America can swallow this as planned.

Now we come to the creation of man. Created in the image of God? But no one has seen or knows what God looks like so how can this be verified? Since man is composed of two sexes this presents a dilemma for the image of God. How can two sexes be portrayed in a single image? Nothing that 34% of the college graduates in America plan to worry about.

Now this is just a small sample from the first page of the book that 34% of the college graduates think is fact. Fact ,mind you. They believe it is a fact there is something that can be in existence yet created existence. They believe something can be pronounced fact if it was uttered by a mystic many ages ago. If it was a part of existence ( i.e it existed ) then that which is existence would not have to have a creator. It would have necessarily preceded anything that existed.

They believe as fact that water preceded land in the formation of the earth. Do they also believe as fact that dry land popped up from a planet totally covered with water? What is the problem with that? How would fresh water lakes exist in the mountains. Is there any evidence that salt water was once covering mountain tops? And if fresh water fish could live in salt water was there a process something like the forbidden word ”evolution” that changed them to survive when the rains of fresh water diluted the salt water? Did anyone ask? They believe as fact that all light sources came into existence at once at the command of a spirit. And how can commands to nothing become something? What is there to hear the commands? Ask the educated 34% who don’t have to be bothered with questions because they are perfectly willing to call anything fact that they have been told and haven’t questioned.

If you start off on the path to knowledge you have to reject the nonsense of faith. Other wise you will believe without evidence and if you do this ,you cannot say you accept it as fact. You can say you accept what someone (either now or in the past ) says as truth, but just accepting it as truth doesn’t mean you have proven it to be true or could prove it to anyone else.. Many so called facts have been found to be untrue. It was contended that man could never fly. It was contended that the world would end numerous times. It was contended the world was flat. Once proclaimed a fact. And all the polls and college education in the world is not sufficient to make something so that wasn’t so. A Biblical account of creation falls into the category of many people believing something that is not so, is not a fact and is in fact impossible.

Impossible you say, why couldn’t creation be true? Funny how asking questions become important to substantiate what has been accepted. Creation can not be true because the concept of a creator is impossible. Simply because one can imagine something or wants something to be true does not make it so. Thirty four percent of college graduates in America can imagine peanuts that talk but have never had a conversation with one. It is impossible because the nature of peanuts ( i.e. their identity ) excludes them from having voice boxes and even though the Planter’s spokesman can blab for hours, a real peanut ( as distinguished from an imagined or humanly created image) just sets waiting for consumption or decay. It is human invention that creates such concepts as a creator ( look at all the religions of the world ) and their foundation. Man can only imagine what he has some familiarity with such as pink elephants from regular elephants, airplanes from birds, and God from an expansion of human powers and knowledge. To project a man with knowledge and power to do and know anything is to create a God. But this projection is impossible. No man can be all powerful or all knowing and neither can a God he professes exists. For to know everything is to be unable to change the future ( other wise he would not know what would happen ). And to be all powerful would require he could change the future in which case he could not know it. This is not a new argument but is provided for the 34% of college graduates who evidently haven’t heard it .

Jay Leno’s Jaywalking segment often has college students who show off their wisdom but being unable to answer what many in the audience find simplistic. He must recruit from the 34%. A desire to learn as apart from a desire to please the professor , a peer group or a preacher is a distinction that separates the scholar from the sycophant. Learning what is as apart from learning what others believe is the difference between using your mind and subverting it to the opinions of others. You can get good grades from someone who wants this type of feedback but you won’t learn anything , least of all how to think.

There has been a concentrated effort throughout mankind’s history to equate thinking with believing. Bu the two cannot be equated. You may say you believe something because you have proven it to be so such as the proof of an algebraic theorem. But you cannot claim knowledge from a belief without substantiation. Substantiation in the form that demonstrates to anyone who investigates your claim that only that conclusion is possible. It is not enough to claim that something is possible to throw it into the realm of reality. Only observing and integrating something with the rest of your knowledge will suffice for further projections of the possible. Leprechauns can be imagined but are not possible. Anything with mystical powers can be imagined ,but possessing mystical powers is not possible for anything no matter how hard it is believed in or how many polls indicate there are believers. Polls are an offshoot of the notion that if a lot of people believe something it must have some credibility. Check out a worldwide poll on the existence of the United States and you might be surprised to find that many in the world do not believe such a place exists.

The knowledge of the people giving feedback to poll takers is a prime ingredient with the findings. Many people are not knowledgeable in the facts supporting evolution or the fallacies of creationism. Thus the polls may lead one to conclude a consensus must point to the truth. This again is the fallacy of believing based on something other than first hand observable fact and latching onto the popularity or intimidation of a perceived majority. This is not education at any level. It is indoctrination by those who want to perpetuate what they have swallowed. And by entering this arena and hoping to never be challenged to verify why you believe as you do ( or offering a flimsy excuse such as I was raised that way ) the challenges you face mount as reality and dreams never seem to mesh. For believing in the impossible leads one to accept the notion that the impossible is possible and a lot of wasted effort pursues disappointment. If the impossible were possible there would be no impossibles. Try growing wings.