Ever Notice How Creationists are the Biggest Skeptics of All?
While in the midst of a recent evolution/creation discussion, I couldn’t help thinking about how creationists have become the biggest skeptics of all time where evolution is concerned.
Creationists frequently assert that there is no evidence for evolution. If you ask a creationist what he would consider evidence, you may get answer like, “A kangaroo should give birth to a litter of puppies,” or “We should see a reptile with the head of a bird.” I have written before–and I will again–on the many things wrong with those statements; anyone with even a basic understanding of evolution should know that the things mentioned above would NOT constitute evidence of evolution, even if they were found. But the fact remains, many creationists will not be satisfied until they can witness one thing “magically” change to another right before their eyes–or unless they could literally go back in time themselves to witness evolution occurring.
Empirical science rarely deals in absolute certainty, but this hardly invalidates it. In real life, absolute certainty is rarely available and not actually required. Take a murder case, for example. Even when a person is found guilty in an American court of murder, it may still be impossible to know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, whether that person actually committed the crime. However, we can still do our best to follow the evidence where it leads, and use these separate pieces to shed light on the big picture. Let’s say that in a given murder case, we have one witness to the crime. The witness’ testimony is worth considering, but it’s hardly a slam-dunk. The witness could be wrong, or he could be lying. If, on the other hand, we have five, six, or seven witnesses, all telling almost the exact same version of the story, this a great deal more compelling.
Let’s also say that the bullet found in the murder weapon matches a gun that was traced back to the accused. On top of that, blood belonging to the accused has been found at the scene of the crime. And to drive it home even further, perhaps we find a letter, written by the accused, in which he announces his intentions to kill the victim.
If we isolate each separate piece of evidence, they might not seem as compelling on their own. Eye witness testimony is rarely enough by itself. It’s possible all the witness are lying. Perhaps someone paid them to mislead the jury? If we look at just the letter, well, maybe we have reason to doubt that the letter was written by the accused at all. If we look at just the murder weapon, maybe the accused can show that the murder weapon was stolen from him when his house was robbed last week. What about the blood? Maybe he went to the victim’s house to cook dinner, cut himself on a carving knife, and bled all over the floor. And this just wasn’t cleaned up properly before the murder occurred.
Creationists often play this game. They isolate specific examples of evidence and try to show why such examples do not conclusively prove evolution. They often ask folks (like me) to provide just ONE piece of convincing evidence, and than point out “problems” with what we offer. “Speciation? Nope, fruit flies are still fruit flies.” “Vestigial organs? No, those only show changes within a species, which is consistent with a biblical interpretation.”
What creationists often fail to realize, though, is that evolution is really more about the vast amount of evidence, the various studies that all agree with one another, the many, many observations we make that all fit exactly the way they should if evolution really did–and does–happen. Yes, some pieces are more convincing than others, but to understand evolution, we must try to understand as mush of the whole puzzle as we can.
Just as with a murder case, all the evidence should be examined as parts which equal the whole. If seven witnesses tell the same story of the crime, if the murder weapon was traced back to the accused, if the blood of the accused was found at the scene, if the accused has a confirmed motive—well, none of this is, by itself, absolute proof of guilt. However, the more evidence we pile on, the more difficult that guilt becomes to ignore.
If we go by way creationists judge evolution, however, no man should be found guilty unless we could literally go back in time and watch the murder being committed. Obviously, such a requirement does not work on a practical level–nor do creationists insists on such requirements for any other field of study, and certainly not for their own religion.
The key to being a fair-minded skeptic, though, is to critically examine all claims equally–and not to apply “special rules” to one pursuit in particular. In the case of creationists, they seem to apply particularly lax standards of critical thinking to Christianity, but demand evolution scientists jump through hopes to prove things that are already accepted by the majority of the scientific community as established fact.
Why don’t these creationists ever say, “I won’t believe in Jesus unless he magically appears before my eyes!” No, such a thing is apparently too much to ask of Jesus–but when it comes to evolution, bring on the amazing kittens hatching out of chicken eggs, please.
You should follow us on twitter.