Creationism is simply wrong

The doctrine of Creationism, specifically that espoused by Catholics, has no basis in reality and cannot in any way be construed as accurately depicting the history of the world/universe.I will define Creationism as follows: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Unreliable Source: The only way that Creationism can be true in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary would be if an even more accurate, respected source of truth exists. For most Creationists, this is the bible. Among the litany of problems here, let's focus on some reasons why we should approach any story in the Bible as being actual fact, based primarily on its many, many contradictions: The Order of Creation: In the first chapter of Genesis, animals are created before humans (1:20-24, 1:26-27), but in the second chapter, man is created before the animals (2:7, 2:19) Divorce: In Matthew, Jesus opposes divorce for any reason “except on the ground of unchastity” 5:32. However, in Mark (10:11) and Luke (16:18), Jesus opposes all divorce. The Last Supper: Passover meal? In Mark 14, Jesus eats a Passover meal with his disciples. In John 19:31, it is clear that Jesus is said to have been crucified and killed on the day of the preparation for the Passover meal, the day before the Passover meal. Thus, the final gathering of Jesus with the disciples as John tells it could not have been a Passover meal. Many Languages, or One? In chapter 10 of Genesis, we get a long account of the many peoples and many languages that descend from Noah and of the many lands that they occupied (10:5, 20, 31-32). However, after this, we are told in the set up for the Tower of Babel story that whole land had only one language and that they all managed to settle on only one plain (11:1). Not Isaiah:Mark 1:2-3 refers to a text “As it is written in the prophet Isaiah.” However, that text never appears in Isaiah, but is rather a combination of texts from Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1. This problem was recognized by early biblical scribes and so we have later versions of the text that read, “As it is written in the prophets.” The Temple Confrontation: Mark 11:15-19 tells of Jesus “cleansing” the Temple at the very end of his ministry, during his final visit to Jerusalem. John 2:13-22 also tells of the Temple cleansing, but he places the event at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, three years before his final visit to Jerusalem Today in Paradise: As just noted, in Luke, Jesus tells a thief being crucified with him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (23:43). But Jesus cannot be in Paradise on that day if he does not rise from the dead until the third day (Luke 24:7). Tearing of the Temple Curtain: In both Mark (15:38) and Matthew (27:51) the temple curtain is torn in two after Jesus breaths his last breath; that is, after he dies. However, in Luke (23:45) the temple curtain is torn before Jesus declares, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” Abiathar vs. Ahimelech: In Mark 2:26 Jesus refers to the time when David entered the Temple to eat the Bread of the Presence when Abiathar was high priest. However, in I Samuel 21:1-6 we read that it was Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father, who was the high priest. The Sea of Judea? In John 5:1, Jesus is in Jerusalem healing, which he does for the entire chapter. John 6:1 begins with, “After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.” But the Sea of Galilee is more than 60 miles to the north, and Jesus had not already been on one side of it so that he could then be said to go to the other side. There are many, many, many more such examples that I am happy to provide Con if needed Bad Science: Despite the work of Henry Morris and others to develop so-called “creation science,” these efforts to create a scientific foundation for creationism have been a dismal failure. For example, no model has ever been created to explain successfully either where enough water for a global flood came from or where it went after the flood. Additionally, not even one essay in creation science has been accepted in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Instead, creationists produce journals where they talk to each other. Finally, creationists are again, and again, and again, wrong on the facts when they try to refute evolution. This would be very tiresome if it were not for the fact that affirming false facts can always sound impressive to people who do not realize that what is being affirmed is false. Mark Isaak’s book The Counter-Creationism Handbook makes very clear just how often creationists make claims that depend on false claims. Needless to say, such a practice is a clear sign that one is defending a very weak position. Different Orders of Creation: In the first chapter of Genesis, animals are clearly created before humans. In the second chapter, Adam is created before the animals. Thus, it is impossible to affirm the literal orders of creation in both chapters. (Also cited in 1.1) Where is the Garden? Have you ever wondered what happened to the Garden of Eden? The Bible gives a rather clear indication of where it was located, so it should, in theory, be rather easy to find. Given that God took pains to place cherubim and a flaming sword at the entrance of the Garden of Eden in order to keep humans out, it seems that just getting rid of the garden was not an option. So where is the garden today? Comprehensive Understanding vs. Theory: Creationists can often be heard saying that evolution is “just a theory.” In doing so, they imply that that evolution is on the same level as the various forms of every day speculation that we imply when we say that an idea we have is “just a theory.” That is, creationists turn the technical term “theory” as it is used in science to mean a comprehensive understanding of some large field of research into its idiomatic every day use. However, the two uses of the term theory are just not even close. When we say something is just a theory, we mean to imply the exact opposite of what is the case for evolution; we mean to imply that we are guessing about something without enough evidence to turn our theory into a confident conclusion. Evolution, on the other hand, has countless pieces of evidence to back it up, and countless scientists demonstrating its truth every day. Given the conflation of these two uses of theory, evolutionists might even think about dropping the term altogether and replacing it with the “worldview” of evolution, or just refer to evolution, with no qualifier at all. Now, let's look at some very specific examples of scientists having proven various aspects of Creation theory. Arguing whether Evolution is the specific antidote to Creationism can be saved for another debate. Age of the Earth/Universe: "The Earth solidified 4.54 billion years ago, plus or minus 1%. That’s a fact, and if your belief is not aligned to this fact, then you are what we call “wrong.” - C. Stuart Hardwick "The Earth formed a persistent solid surface 4.54 billion years ago." "Life appeared no less than 3.8 billion years ago." "A billion years later, cyanobacteria started producing oxygen as a waste product, and this started precipitating iron dissolved in the oceans into the deposits we now quarry for ore." "The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion (10E9) years" - Planck Collaboration "The Lambda-CDM concordance model describes the evolution of the universe from a very uniform, hot, dense primordial state to its present state over a span of about 13.8 billion years" - European Space Agency Arguments from Ignorance Eugenie C. Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. God of the Gaps Intelligent design has also been characterized as a God-of-the-gaps argument, which has the following form: There is a gap in scientific knowledge. The gap is filled with acts of God (or intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or intelligent designer). A God-of-the-gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions. Academia "To any mainstream biologist, creationism sounds ludicrous and scientists have repeatedly fought attempts to introduce the teaching of creationism generally, and intelligent design particularly, into school curricula." - Theodosius Dobzhansky Next, we can discuss more of the ludicrous Creationist claims regarding fossils, irreducibility, and more!