Creationist Bingo

creationist-bingo

Michael Roberts shared the above card for playing “Creationist Bingo.” It seems to have been updated compared to ones that I have seen before. Someone needs to make a full set, with the squares shuffled around, and perhaps some more added/substituted on some of them. And then the next time someone comes here promoting young-earth creationism or Intelligent Design, we can all play!

"Contra mythicism, interpreting "Rulers of this Age" as demons does not imply a celestial Jesus. ..."

James, Brother of Jesus, Bother of ..."
"The name Jesus (Joshua) seems to have some interesting typological connections to the Joshua of ..."

700 Names of Jesus?
"A part 2 to The Gospel According To Carrie has been released. Here it is: ..."

The Gospel According to Carrier
"http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photo..."

700 Names of Jesus?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Darach Conneely

    Observational vs historical science

  • Darach Conneely

    You don’t believe the bible/Jesus

  • Caleb G

    Here are a couple that were floating around before the Nye/Ham Debate

    http://ncse.com/blog/2014/02/getting-ready-nye-ham-debate-0015367

  • Nancy Lindsay Rosenzweig

    Were you there?

    • ButILikeCaves

      My favorite response to that one is “Nope, but neither were you, and I have mountains of physical evidence on my side. I mean literally, mountains”.

  • Darwinist conspiracy.

  • Freedomlovingdadof7

    EXCELLENT! This way you can reduce any discussion to a Bingo card square, and shut it down before it starts.

    • When the same tired canards are repeated no matter how many times they have been addressed, there seems to be little reason not to do so.

      Here is a link to round-ups of the highlights of my blogging on this subject through 2008: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2010/02/blogging-creationism-and-intelligent-design-the-highlights-revisited.html

      How many times does one have to show claims to be not merely wrong, but false, before playing Bingo becomes appropriate?

      • Freedomlovingdadof7

        Let me address one of your Bingo squares: “CONFUSE EVOLUTION WITH ABIOGENESIS”

        Perhaps there is not as much confusion as you think. Unless you are a theist, any theory of evolution MUST assume some form of abiogenesis. Perhaps this is the issue creationists are addressing.

        Darwin certainly did not object to speculation about abiogenesis with his “warm little pond”. The scientific world was electrified (pun intended) by the publication of the results of the Miller-Urey experiments. It was only after scientists began to appreciate the complexity of life, and grew tired of creationists pointing out the difficulties that they divorced abiogenesis from evolutionary thinking, and ruled any mention of abiogenesis out of bounds when discussing evolution. Unfortunately for evolutionists, abiogenesis IS the elephant in the room.

        Evolutionists refusing to address abiogenesis remind me of the cartoon at the following link: http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/I-think-you-should-be-more-explicit-here-in-step-two-Cartoon-Prints_i8562937_.htm

        • It isn’t a case of scientists (what are “evolutionists”?) refusing to address an issue. It is a matter of the question of the origin of life being separate from the study of the course it has followed once we have life in existence. If you think it wise to insert God into the gap in our knowledge about life’s origins, that’s up to you – I find the attempt to insert God as explanation into gaps in our scientific understanding to be dubious and dangerous from a theological perspective. Just so long as you don’t deny the overwhelming evidence that living things on this planet are related to one another through a process of change over time, as is documented in our genes and not just in the fossil record.

          • Freedomlovingdadof7

            You stated, “It is a matter of the question of the origin of life being separate from the study of the course it has followed once we have life in existence.”

            Yes you are correct that as a discipline the ToE can be considered separately from the origin of life. That doesn’t change the reality that the ToE accepts an origin of life as a given. Either you “insert God into the gap in our knowledge about life’s origins”, or you postulate a spontaneous origin of life from purely material factors; i.e. abiogenesis.

            You stated, “If you think it wise to insert God into the gap in our knowledge about life’s origins, that’s up to you – I find the attempt to insert God as explanation into gaps in our scientific understanding to be dubious and dangerous from a theological perspective.”

            My point with the cartoon was that refusal to address abiogenesis when considering ToE amounts to an arbitrary delineation between concepts that in reality are related, and can become a form of “God of the Gaps” thinking itself. The boundaries we put around disciplines can sometimes limit our outlook. Hence the prevalence of “interdisciplinary studies.”

            Evolutionists are people (some scientists and some not) who attempt to explain life in all its variety as the result of purely material factors without recourse to a Creator. Creationists are people (some scientists and some not) who appeal to a Creator to explain the origin and the variety of life. Note that this does NOT imply the ‘fixity of species’ which is held by very few if any creationists, and is rather a straw man.

            (BTW I addressed biological evolution only. The differences between creationists and evolutionists also extend to questions about the origin and history of the earth, the solar system, and the cosmos itself.)

          • ButILikeCaves

            BINGO!!!
            Thanks for playing!

          • lance Geologist

            Speaking as a Geologist, evolution is observable and is wonderful to behold.Speaking as a man who has his own opinions about God or Gods, there is nothing about the evolution of species or of this Earth that says there is or is not a God. The two need not be in conflict. A friend of mine(happens to have been Jewish) , on his death bed, said he knew there is a God because he has friends.I can not refute that , nor would I try. He also was a Geologist and had no problem believing in a God and understanding Geology.All can look at the wonder of this Earth and see the changes and not threaten their belief if they so choose.

        • Ian

          If it turned out that God created the first life forms ex-nihilo, then it wouldn’t invalidate the discovery of the evolution of life after that point, nor the age of the earth and the universe, and so on.

          So it seems the bingo card works: your canard is a combination of woeful misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

          It was only after scientists … grew tired of creationists pointing out the difficulties that they divorced abiogenesis from evolutionary thinking

          Wow, you really do live in some alternative reality connected to the real world in the most tenuous ways.

          • Freedomlovingdadof7

            Do you think that that God created the first life forms ex-nihilo, or is this a mere debating point on your part?

            Neither Darwin nor Miller and Urey had any objection to diving into Darwin’s ‘warm little pond.’ At what point did defenders of the ToE begin to make such an issue over separating the ToE from abiogenesis, and why?

          • Ian

            It was a debating point: a hypothetical, to illustrate that evolution and abiogenesis are different things. Regardless how abiogenesis happened, whether god caused, or some other mechanism, it wouldn’t invalidate the discoveries of evolution. There is no conceivable situation in which some abiogenetic discovery makes biologists say “oh look, the world is 6000 year old after all, and all animals were created in largely their current form.” That hypothesis has been comprehensively refuted, it is simply false. Abiogenesis is a gap in our current knowledge, but evolution isn’t.

            Biologists have speculated about the origins of life, and still do. I can’t imagine anyone hasn’t. If you can’t differentiate between how Darwin wrote about the warm little pond, and what he wrote about evolution and common descent, then your scientific literacy really is poor.

            Miller and Urey were specifically researching abiogenesis, and were clear about this. Stan Miller was an organic chemist, not an evolutionary biologist. Haldane, who hypothesized about the required prebiotic environment needed for synthesis of biochemicals by lightning, was a biologist, however. But again, if you have actually read Haldane (a big if, I realise, in my experience, creationists only tend to read ready-cherry-picked quotemines of the people they cite) and can’t differentiate between the kind of hypothetical work underpinning Miller and Urey, and his work in statistical genetics, then you need to get a good primer on how science works.

            And in fact, quite a large number of biologists and biochemists don’t think Haldane was correct about the abiogenetic mechanism. But, funnily enough, none of them have decided to stop using markov models to understand allele change.

            The kind of deliberate confusion and innuendo you’re engaging in, is exactly the trite canards that the bingo card humorizes. The fact that creationists love to wield these vast accumulations of scientific knowledge and expertise with nothing but a propaganda webpage understanding of the field, and a sub-high-school level of scientific literacy.

          • Ian

            Looking at your other responses, perhaps my response above would be a little subtle. Let me be more specific to your second question.

            When creationists start massacring science and start using terms wrongly, scientists respond by being clearer about terms and pointing out where concepts are being merged which are separate. Creationists love to misunderstand what evolution is, so a response in discussions is to point out that the theory of evolution is separate from hypotheses of abiogenesis.

            The weird naive arrogance of creationists often confuse this for having drawn concessions from scientists, or having them ‘change their tune’. But that is purely a function of the fact that most creationists have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about to start with, yet are totally convinced they are 100% right in everything they’ve been told. So they interpret someone trying to cover some basic high-school science as a ‘change’.

            This has happened to me. A creationist once asked me to explain the genetics of protein evolution (my PhD topic was the mathematics of evolution). So I began, and went back to basics. But I couldn’t even get through the material in the first undergraduate lecture in genetics, because he was busy quote-mining all these ‘famous biologists’ who were ‘disagreeing’ with me (“do you know more than these people? Are you saying they are wrong??”). In fact, of course, my creationist interlocutor was just misunderstanding what they were saying. If he’d have been able to stick with the learning long enough, we could have got as far as looking at what they were talking about, and how it fit into evolutionary genetics. But the conviction of “I’m right, scientists are lying idiots, I know plenty enough to know they’re wrong.” was so strong, that never happened. I’m sure he probably thinks to this day that he met this evolutionist who was willing to change everything and lie to seem more reasonable.

            I’ve said this before, but – whether true or false – if you want to find out what scientists believe and why, you need to study science on its own terms. You will not get good scientific information from placed dedicating to ‘refuting’ science. Any more than I’d advise someone to find out more about Christian theology by reading Richard Dawkins’s website. Whether Christian theology is true or false, you’re not going to find out what Christians believe and why unless you listen to Christians on their own terms. Going into that conversation trying to ‘debunk’ everything may be good for your ego, but is ultimately useless.

            So rather than trawling blogs spouting canards, how about enrolling to audit a genetics or evolution 101 course at your local community college.

          • Freedomlovingdadof7

            Ian – I would really be interested in seeing your dissertation on the mathematics of evolution. If you don’t feel comfortable sharing the whole thing, a reasonably detailed summary will do.

          • Ian

            If you want to learn some basic science there are much better places to start than a PhD dissertation. Start with a basic genetics or evolutionary biology course at your local college.

            I have absolutely no desire to discuss my thesis topic with someone without the background or desire to understand it. There is literally no good that would come out of it. Since below you’ve shown yourself incapable of even outlining what the Theory of Evolution *is*, to the level of a high-school science course, it would be as useful as discussing a thesis on Moltman’s use of Atonement theology in his Discussion of Grace with someone who’s prime motivation was to argue that God doesn’t exist.

        • “any theory of evolution MUST assume some form of abiogenesis”

          Any theory of evolution MUST also assume some form of gravity, some form of planetary physics, some form of geological stratification, and that the sky is blue.

          What was your point, again?

          • Freedomlovingdadof7

            As you so eloquently stated, a ToE MUST assume all these things.

            My point was that the Bingo card motif seems designed to foreclose any discussion pertaining to (in this instance) abiogenesis with respect to ToE, even though the origin of life is a necessary precursor to any subsequent history of life.

            I repeat; at what point did defenders of the ToE begin to make such an issue over separating the ToE from abiogenesis, and why?

          • Actually, what I was trying to point out tangentially – through sarcasm – was that these other issues are irrelevant to discussing the scientific theory of evolution itself.

            I certainly have no problems with discussing the topic of abiogenesis. But there is a definite problem in the context of creationism discussion (and I’ve only been having discussions with creationists for over 30 years – especially having been a creationist myself a long time back) – and that is precisely that with creationists “evolution” means everything and the kitchen sink that has to do with what we know about reality today through scientific study and discoveries that contradicts their religious beliefs. And then you throw in the fact that, quite literally, one of the most popular religious apologetics arguments for belief in some god is the god-of-the-gaps argument (I kid you not). This sets the table for creationists attacking “evolution” (not the scientific theory of evolution) by trotting out any scientific unknown they can think of as being a conflicting challenge to “evolution”. Of course, the most well used gaps are the Big Bang and the origin of life. But the fact of the matter is that even if we were to toss the Big Bang model in the trash and pretend that no research of any kind has ever been done regarding abiogenesis this does not in fact alter the scientific theory of evolution in the slightest. All of the research studies and discoveries that have led to what constitutes the modern scientific theory stand, regardless of those other things.

            Thus, it is absolutely correct in the context of creationism discussions to delineate these things properly for the deliberate purpose of cutting out all the red herring that creationists are so very fond of.

            Finally, in regard to your specific point about foreclosing discussion, it is creationist rhetoric itself that is designed to foreclose discussion, and in regard to foreclosing discussion about the actual scientific theory of evolution, the topic of abiogenesis is merely played as god-of-the-gaps trump card by creationists to foreclose discussion about evolution. Evolution can’t explain abiogenesis, so evolution is all washed up. Why waste any time discussing evolution itself when it’s already been trumped by its failure to explain why the sky is blue?

          • Freedomlovingdadof7

            And I am pointing out that issues with abiogenesis are NOT irrelevant when discussing the ToE. It’s like studying Darwin’s tree of life while deliberately foreclosing any consideration of the root system (metaphorically speaking). You can’t make sense of a tree apart from its roots. You can’t make sense of the putative history of life without a consideration of the factors that led to that point.

            Leaving aside theistic evolutionists and other interesting hybrids, the ToE is an attempt to explain the ubiquity and diversity of life without recourse to a Creator; i.e. by completely material factors, apart from any design or purpose. The same physical laws that allegedly drive the development and diversification of life must also account for the origin of life, again without recourse to Creator, design, or purpose.

            Now I fully understand that within the physicalist framework, the MECHANISMS (genetic drift, mutations, natural selection, etc.) allegedly driving the evolution of life are different from those allegedly giving rise to life in the first place, and that those espousing the ToE want to limit the discussion to those putative mechanisms. My response is two-fold: a) Given a philosophy of materialism, physicalism, or whatever you want to call it, both the origin and development of life reduce to the outworking of physical and chemical laws, and are therefore both explicable in principle by appeal to these laws. b) Darwin and other promoters of evolution, up through Miller and Urey and beyond, had no problem with such an appeal to these laws. It was only after the complexity of life at the molecular level became widely known, and embarrassing questions began to be raised by challengers to the ToE, that its defenders began to be defensive about abiogenesis in the context of the ToE.

            Of course it’s not only creationists and ID theorists that see problems with the current reigning paradigm. Gould and Eldridge introduced their theory of punctuated equilibrium, inspired in part by Goldschmidt’s saltation theories, more picturesquely known as the “hopeful monster” theory. Although PE never really caught on, it, along with Goldschmidt’s saltation theories, were attempts to grapple with what they regarded as intractable problems with the standard theory. Their theories were rejected, but the problems they attempted to address remain.

          • No, evolution is the way we make sense of the vast amount of genetic and paleontological data indicating that living things have changed over the course of time and that we share common ancestry with other living things on this planet. One no more must include or exclude God from this than from a discussion of the weather, which can be adequately explained in terms of natural processes, not because of some secular conspiracy to do so, but because it can. If explanation in terms of natural processes is objectionable to you, then is it safe to assume that you object to all the sciences equally?

          • Ian

            Wow, this is such a mess of ignorance and misunderstanding. You seriously need to stop getting your information on what science is and what it has found from people committed to overthrowing it. Or you’ll just end up with more of this nonsense.

            Though given that you’ve basically copied and pasted a point I responded to above without even acknowledging the response, I suspect you’re not actually interested in anything so lofty as understanding.

          • You wrote: “And I am pointing out that issues with abiogenesis are NOT irrelevant when discussing the ToE. It’s like studying Darwin’s tree of life while deliberately foreclosing any consideration of the root system (metaphorically speaking). You can’t make sense of a tree apart from its roots. You can’t make sense of the putative history of life without a consideration of the factors that led to that point.”

            And that is just flat out wrong. In fact, it’s actually a quite asinine statement. ‘We don’t yet know how the first primitive living organisms developed, therefore we don’t know anything about the evolution of life after that.’ Which is completely absurd. We have in fact made a great deal of sense of the history of life without knowing how the very first organisms came about. So your premise is completely wrong from the get-go.

            You’re wrong about punctuated equilibrium as well. It was inspired by Ernst Mayr’s (and others) discussions about speciation, specifically what is called allopatric speciation.

            Anyway, I didn’t realize you were a creationist. Now I know.

            You wrote, “Leaving aside theistic evolutionists and other interesting hybrids, the ToE is an attempt to explain the ubiquity and diversity of life without recourse to a Creator; i.e. by completely material factors, apart from any design or purpose.”

            Which means evolution is like geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, meteorology, oceanography, etc. This is because like these other areas of science, evolution is science.

            Duh.

            Unlike creationism, of course, which is religion, not science. This is the point.

        • ButILikeCaves

          Dang, Freedomlovingdadof7, you were two squares away from me winning this round!!