creationism is unjustifiable

When the debate over evolution comes up, there seems to be a tendency for hard-lined fundamentalist Christians to force their beliefs into the debate: creationism versus evolutionism as if they actually had a plausible counterpart to evolution. Creationism, the belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible, fails to meet any scientific or logical criteria. For instance, Answers in Genesis (AIG) attacks circular reasoning while it maintains that circular reasoning is technically valid [1]. In short, they have their cake and eat it too. This kind of behavior leads creationists to lie and deceive anyone who will listen to them. Creationism cannot stand on its own merits like real science, and, therefore, is not a justifiable belief. Creationists attempt in some instances to stand on their "discoveries;" however, they lack any critical inquiry and insightful analysis, and they ignore the conclusions of mainstream scientists. AIG writes, "Archaeologists once boasted that the Bible was full of errors because no independent, historic evidence had been found to confirm the Bible's claims. But a slew of astounding discoveries has put a damper on their boasting" [2]. Each discovery in this article lacks any sort of insightful analysis and creates unwarranted conclusions. The Tel Dan Stele, for instance, mentions the "House of David." AIG concludes that this is evidence that a biblical event occurred and that it occurred exactly the way the Bible said it happened. Such a conclusion is too presumptuous. The article is completely reticent about any context behind the stele. It could be that a conqueror was bragging about his victory over Judah [3]. We have to ask ourselves, even without any further reading into any of these finds, are mainstream archeologists oblivious to these finds? If the article's conclusions are self-evident, then why are they not shared by mainstream archeologists? The answer is easy: AIG's conclusions are fallacious. When creationists fail at proving their proposition upon its own merits, they resort to misinterpreting evolution (Darwinism as they call it). AIG writes a brief description of evolution [4]. They say it is change, but they also incorrectly claim that it is alternately referred to as hypothesis, theory, law, and fact. Stephen J. Gould gave a concise description of the relationship between facts and theories when he said, "[E]volution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered" [5]. This is creationists' biggest mistake (they have a lot): they conflate the general definition of theory with the scientific definition. Evolution is fact, theory, law, and hypothesis (that is to say that there are hypotheses in evolution). These concepts cannot be separated from each other. Because creationists fail to prove their own propositions and misinterpret the position of scientists, creationism is an unjustifiable belief. Many times they contradict their own criteria (that is if they have any. They seem to think so). They falsely criticize scientists for the very same intellectual crimes they commit. The dangerous ting about creationism is that it is getting more popular. The fact that people think there is a debate worthy of our consideration shows that a large portion of the population thinks there is something tenable in creationism. [1] http://www.answersingenesis.org... [2] http://www.answersingenesis.org... [3] http://www.nelc.ucla.edu... [4] http://www.answersingenesis.org... [5] http://www.stephenjaygould.org...