No New Information About Young-Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design proponents and young-earth creationists tell lies. That isn’t new information. One of the lies they tell is that genetic mutations do not produce new information. This video addresses this lie of theirs.

"This is just ordinary empirical reasoning, though. Does Convington watch crime dramas?The threating email, the ..."

Earl Doherty as Christian Reformer
"There is a film called Brother of the Wind, it seems to be about eagles.However, ..."

Earl Doherty as Christian Reformer
"Yes, I think I covered that off in the comment you're replying to :-) the ..."

Earl Doherty as Christian Reformer
"Probably you're right and the general sense of this is <sibling> <belonging-to> <uniting-symbol> rather than ..."

Earl Doherty as Christian Reformer

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Josh

    A lie is an intentionally false statement. You were once a creationist, weren’t you? Were you telling lies or were you sincerely kidding yourself? There is a difference. What is to be gained by a sweeping accusation of all creationists like this?

    • David Cohen

      To the best of my knowledge, pointing out the fatal flaws in creationists’ claims does not make them reconsider their opinions. Indeed, many of them repeat claims that have been debunked for decades (i.e. “there are no transitional fossils”). Explaining why these long debunked claims are not valid only makes them dig in their heels and fall back on trite stock responses like “How do you know? Were you there?!?”

      The entire creationist movement has demonstrated itself to be completely uninterested in advancing science. It never corrects itself, never changes in response to new information and never considers that its central premise might be wrong. For that reason, creationist pronouncements can be generally assumed to be lies.

    • John Pieret

      The average person-in-the-street creationist is probably not “lying” in that sense, They are, most of them, just repeating lies they’ve been told. But there is considerable evidence that the professional creationists, the Ken Hams and Discovery [sic] Institute drones for example, are telling lies they know to be either false or they know they don’t have the expertise to assert in the first place.

    • David Evans

      The accusation is aimed at young-Earth creationists. Anyone who holds that opinion must believe that most of modern astronomy, cosmology, geology and biology is based on lies (though, somehow, the sciences that enable them to use the internet are true). That’s about as sweeping as it gets.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      I would say that yes, I was guilty of spreading lies. It does not matter that I did not invent the lies myself. I had the responsibility to not merely repeat things I was told without fact-checking them, to not slander whole fields of science and the people who work in them, and I failed to do what I ought to have. I do not consider the spreading of lies – whether of this sort or others – less culpable. Indeed, there would presumably be less inventing of falsehoods if there were not a network of people ready to spread them in this way.

  • David Evans

    The video is good, but it might leave a creationist thinking “You are assuming that the mutated DNA has a useful function. What if it does nothing, or does something harmful?” This is where it’s important to understand natural selection, which acts to weed out harmful mutations and spread beneficial ones through the population.

  • The Eh’theist

    That’s a great succinct explanation of how information gets added,with examples that can’t be argued (unless one wants to claim Noah had nylon on the ark.) Thanks.

  • QueenMab

    I think it’s unfair to lump proponents of intelligent design (who can vary widely in their views and aren’t even all Christians) together with young earth creationists who believe that Geneis is the actual story of the beginning of the planet. I think there is a big difference between thinking the universe evolved from a random celestial bomb going off to the idea that it was created in 6 literal days. There’s a lot of wiggle room between the two.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      There certainly is a wide array of views, and there certainly are differences between most proponents of ID and the stances of young-earth creationists. But both have in common the rejection of mainstream science, while most Christians historically and today agree that one need not reject the conclusions of either biology or geology in order to believe faithfully that the cosmos has a Creator.