Science, Religion:
JoT re Jason re "Creationism as Anti-Theory"

Your reply includes an assertion that is worth some thought: that the Yahwist story of creation and the fall serves as a parsimonious explanation for a variety of disparate observations. Nominally, the explanation seems parsimonious because it allows you to reply "Read Genesis and the fall" in answer to several questions.

But "Read Genesis and the fall" doesn't qualify as a parsimonious explanation because it simply amounts to a number of logically unrelated explanations. There's no logical relationship, for example, between women suffering in childbirth and people being mortal. That's why there's no explanation in Genesis for why YHWH chose painful childbirth as a curse for women, as opposed to baldness or stuttering.

In the same way, I could write a little red book and fill it with a bunch of disparate explanations for things, but if I did, then "Read my little red book" wouldn't be a parsimonious explanation for anything.

You also state and imply a number of errors.

1. The article wasn't "aimed at antagonising Christians." First, creationism and Christianity are distinct. There are plenty of Christians who aren't creationists. The Mormons and Catholics have even back-pedaled on this issue. Second, the creationists in the US tout creationism as a scientific theory demonstrable without reference to Christianity (the better to fast-talk school boards into mandating the teaching of creationism or the undercutting of evolution science). So even if my goal had been to antagonize creationists, that wouldn't be the same thing as antagonizing Christians. Third, I write this site primarily for like-minded people; if I wanted to antagonize people, I'd go make insulting posts on people's web sites, as you did.

2. This is not a "gaming site." [To be fair, it was because of Jason's letter that I added the disclaimer on the front page, explaining that this is not a gaming site.]

3. I don't suffer from "a lack of understanding of the creationist point of view." I enjoy a profound lack of sympathy for that point of view, but I've got a pretty good handle on it. That's why the only thing in your reply that gave me pause for thought was the implicit claim that "read Genesis and the fall" is a parsimonious answer to various observations. For broadening my understanding of what's wrong with creationist "theory," I thank you.

4. The story of the fall from Genesis does not address the presence of "rattlesnakes, ticks, tapeworms, disease-causing bacteria, tsetse flies, and other destructive creatures." Christians, influenced by pagan Greek thought (which worked out what it might mean for God to be ultimate and perfect), came to be troubled by the presence of these creatures. To square Hebrew myth with Greek philosophy, Christians retroactively read "the fall of nature" into "the fall of humanity." The fall of nature is not part of the story of the Garden in Eden.

5. The issue of why orders of land vertebrates have four limbs can't be dismissed with a "why not?" because arachnids, centipedes, millipedes, crustaceans, insects, and earthworms have various numbers of limbs. The commonality of limb number in land vertebrate orders stands out as a salient, not a random, feature. Likewise, the commonality of limb number among venomous land arthropods with book lungs and no compound eyes, and the commonality of limb number (and type) among arthropods with antennae and compound eyes. But you see my point. Your frank inability to even to address limb number points to the vapidity of creationism as a "theory."

6. That "it works better" for men to be bigger and more aggressive than women makes no sense for an intelligent creator. It might work "better" from an evolutionary point of view, but so does a man killing his girlfriend's children by her previous lovers or sleeping with his neighbor's wife. For men and women to be different sizes works better in an evolutionary environment, where efficiently providing for young increases fitness. But in the labor-free garden in Eden, efficiency was to be irrelevant and the gender difference in stature also irrelevant.

7. You say that I "do not give correct reasoning for things from the creationist point of view, merely making up comments that creationist may say ( but wouldn't if they knew their bible)." Yet in point after point, you restate the very comments that I suggest a creationist would say. You have no explanation for vestigial body parts or four-leggedness in land vertebrate orders, and you refer to the fall for noxious animals, painful childbirth, and mortality. You slip away from my predictions (and also from Biblical basis) with your assessment that God made women smaller because that's efficient. Since Adam and Eve were built to live without labor, efficiency should not have been an issue, so your explanation is contra-scriptural.

8. Your unexceptional restatement of the Christian reinterpretation of Genesis does not serve to get me "started on an understanding of the other side of the argument," as I've been studying creationism for 20 years, and your summary told me nothing new.

9. You claim too broad an acceptance of creationism, devilism (belief in the devil), biblical literalism, etc., among Christians when you portray your "summary of history" as being "from a Christian point of view," unless you meant it as "from one of many Christian points of view." Since you repeatedly refer to Christians as a homogeneous group that would be offended by my criticism of creationism, the context of your post suggests that you mean "from the Christian point of view."

10. While the "everlasting pain" you refer to (for people like me) has been incorporated into Christian belief, it's pagan in origin, not Biblical. For that matter, fantasizing that one's enemies will be tortured is tacky.

11. It's incorrect to characterize my opposition to creationism as a reaction to some Christians' depiction of RPGs as an occult plot of the devil's (and wishful thinking to imagine that it's the result of a misunderstanding). I opposed creationism before I started gaming.

12. You say, "don't expect the most lucid of trains of logic." Oh, don't worry about that!

—JoT
April 2002

other responses to "Creationism"

top