Creationism question?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080726/sc_livescience/thesurprisinghistoryofamericaswildhorses;_ylt=Al3Cg_5evSAPR23ltZeRtG.zvtEF

The link above is to an article about the evolution of the domesticated horse.

My question is, how does an article like this read to a creationist?

Does it go anything like this?

1) The article is fundamentally wrong. Horses did not evolve. Evolution never happened.

2) Horses did not appear in their modern form 1.7 million years ago, as the Earth is only 6000 or so years old.

3) MtDNA studies are worthless since there is no evolution. Therefore MtDNA information is random garbage in DNA that just happens to occur in patterns

4) Since horses have been present for all of recorded history (which goes back to near the dawn of the creationist world) Horses must have been created in Eurasia.

5) Basically the whole article is based on evidence that has been placed their by God in order to further confuse us.

6) Horses are as God made them.

Is that about right?

Answer 1

Hmm well, if my right arm did something bad, I wouldn't make my left arm cut it off. I don't interpret the Bible literally, though I am a Christian.

If you say something metaphorically, the meaning behind it is true, but not the statement itself. It's not literally true. God doesn't want you to cut your appendages off, he just wants you to realize that you shouldn't let evil be a part of you, etc.

God says you're going to h**l. Now THAT should be taken literally.

My last sentence was meant to be sarcastic :) You guys believed I was serious? heh ok maybe I should put some more indications of sarcasm since you're so horrible at spotting it.

Answer 2

WHAT evolution? The article describes no evolution, it only shows different breeds of the same species.

It states that the horse species, Equus, is a part of what was once a large family of species called Equidae. So how does evolution have any place in that? Extinction and environmental adaptation take place, changing the different types of Equus in very slight ways. Different types (like the *** for example) are just a result of breeding. Asses have been around forever, too.

I don't believe the article even calls it "evolution".

Furthermore, who actually believes the Earth was created 6,000 years ago? I have no reason to. The Scripture never states it so. Not only do I not have any idea when the Earth was created, I also do not really care!

@Academicjoq -- just goes to show how no number of long-winded academic titles proves anything about a person's intelligence.

The Scripture never states the Earth is the center of the universe, firstly, so how do you figure it was just Christians who argued it was? In fact the Bible suggests otherwise.

You're probably one of those people who attribute theories of "flat Earth" to Christians, when really the Bible explicitly states the Earth is round, and it was in fact explorers and scientists who stated the Earth was flat at the time.

Answer 3

If a hard core, "ignorant of evolutionary science" creationist that believes the Earth is 6000 years old were to interpret the question, then your 6 part summary would be correct.

However, when science is thrown in (just as happened when Copernicus proved the christians wrong when he proved the Earth was NOT the center of the universe; just as Pasteur proved the christians wrong when he proved that spontaneous generation was a myth), science proves christian mythology wrong and it upsets the narrow minded degenerates.  

The stories made up by ultra conservative religious factions will go to any extreme and make up the most outrageous lies to protect their vested belief.

Answer 4

I quickly scanned the article (I'm a geologist and 2/3's remembered what I read- made immediate sense to me).

I think you needn't worry about what a creationist would see in such an article.  He will not read it, can not read it.  Although the article is clear and well written it still make many references that literate readers will unconsciously pick up  A creationist will miss all those points.  Pretty discouraging really.

There is no way to talk to a creationist unless you can get him back into kindergarten and re-raise him in some century more recent then the 17th when geology was stating to be formalized.

Interesting question.

Perhaps we could start a creationist webpage called deadscience and sneakily inform them of something useful.

Answer 5

actually, i think that most pure creationists do not truely KNOW what evolution is.  a true creationist believes the 100 percent literal word of the bible.  so if a true creationist doesn't know what evolution IS, then they don't have much evidence to prove that it is wrong and just quotes the bible.  

There is evidence that suports the idea that the world is 6000 years old.  (i watched a documentary by a 100% creationist scholar and it made me think). and there is also evidence that proves it wrong.  I used to be a 100% creationist until I learned what evolution really WAS and found that evolution is the truth.  The real debate isn't is evolution real but how long has evolution occurred.



If a creationist says that there is no evidence that evolution is real then they probably don't know what it is to begin with.

NOW, I still believe the bible is the truth, but maybe sometimes not meant to be interpreted in the literal word.  I believe now what darwin believed, that on a scale from creationism to evolution (where someone believes 100% creation or 100% evolution) u need to be in the middle and not at either end. (he was a preacher)  the earth may be only 6000 years old, or it could be millions or billions.  I realize now that i need to be more open minded about things.  Especially because in the 1500's galileo was prisoned for going against the church when in fact he was really correct.

Answer 6

This article addresses a lot of the basic tenets of Creationism, which I could sum up for you. This might help you understand how a supporter of ID may be thinking.

The Tenets of Creationism (or Special Creation Theory):

1) All organisms were created simultaneously, and exist currently in their forms.

2) There is no homology between organisms, and each organism is uniquely inspired. That is, there are NO common ancestors between species.

3) The Earth is very young--only thousands of years old as opposed to billions.

4) Life is much too complex and the structures of organisms too profound for life to have originated by chance. There is a designed with a purpose and intellect behind the creation of life.

5) Life came from a beginning point where there was NO living thing and erupted through the will of a Creator.

Most Creationists draw their paradigm on evolution from their religious background--the Abrahamic religions being the biggest contributors. Christianity and Islam have even resorted to allegorical interpretation of Genesis and the Creation events to provide a scientific spin on Intelligent Design. And yes, though some ID supporters claim to be scientists, most come from a religious background. But yes, from a Creationist stand-point, your views would be very aligned. To the Creationist, life and all its complexity has a purpose and role unknown to us and all organisms exist now as they ever were or ever will. It's all based upon a combination of religious teachings and our still minimal understanding of life's inner workings. I think this "theory" will continue to stick around until these tenets can be or are discredited by science.