The Star's Great Creationism Debate

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Tue 24/05/2011 20:46 – Published with minor changes and minus the parts in blue, as “Gaping holes in creationists’ argument” on Mon May 30, 2011.

 

The Creationism Debate of Thurs May 19 2011 needs a whole page of rebuttal, which the Editor is unlikely to give me, but here goes:

Dr AM Levin makes a creditable attempt to reconcile the Creation myth with what happened according to science.  He interprets the "days" of creation as mapping to various geological eons.

For him these are not literal days but "ages".

However he misses a vital point: For each "day" the bible repeats "And the evening and the morning were the n-th day" (in those days, and still in Jewish tradition, the day was taken to start at sunset).

These were meant to be understood as literal, 24-hour days, not symbolic ages.  Or what are "evening and the morning" symbolic of?  

If we are to take the bible as symbolic, perhaps the gods of the bible are also intended to be symbolic, rather that actual existing entities?

Ron Schurink wants us to believe that modern civilization has a debt to monotheistic religion, i.e. Christianity.

We can debate whether Christianity, with its three gods that somehow get shoe-horned into one, is really monotheistic.

However there are two genuinely monotheistic superstitions, namely Judaism and Islam, which he totally forgets.  Both developed high cultures, as did the non-monotheistic superstitions of the east.

History shows that Christianity vehemently opposed scientific progress as far as possible, and its remaining centres of power still do so, as in the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception.

Leon du Toit raises the hoary red herring of the missing links in the fossil record.

It is difficult for us as humans, with a lifespan of the order of 100 years, to understand a hundred times a hundred times that, i.e. a million years.  For anything to survive that long is amazing.

Fossils do not form easily: They need very specific conditions.  So, the fact that we find fossils at all is remarkable.  To find a complete record is well-nigh impossible.  

As Richard Dawkins has wittily pointed out, when a fossil is found that fits neatly into the gap between two others, the creationists are very happy, because they now have two gaps to complain about instead of one!

The case of the eye is another one that Dawkins has dealt with more than adequately.

To inadequately summarise a whole chapter, would an awareness of light in certain cells give the animal an advantage?  Obviously yes.  

That individual would then be more likely to survive, breed, and produce more offspring.  The rare mutations that produced better vision would be favoured, and would propagate.  

As to partially-developed eyes, the eye is a soft structure not preserved, like bones, in fossils.  

However, throughout the animal kingdom today we find eye-like structures in various stages of development: All the way from mere sensitivity to light, through to the eyes of the eagle.

Finally, du Toit says that we have not yet been able to synthesise life.  True.  How long have we been at it, and how long did it take evolution?  Nature, experimenting on a huge number of whole planets, took billions of years –so at least give the scientists a few thousand!

Debate around Religion: The Bible is Fiction.

Sent to "The Star, Johannesburg" on Sat 02/10/2010 22:14, Published Tue Oct 5 2010, except for the sentence in blue.

We have a nice crop of responses to my letter of Sept 27 2010 criticising the Bible.  How sad that the critics appear not to have read the "Good Book" itself!

Jaco Bruwer (Sept 29, "There's no reason to trash biblical explanation") and Niki Christie (Sept 30, "Being sure of what we hope for") imply that the "days" referred to in the Creation Myth are not 24-hour days but "ages".

Please read Genesis 1:  It says the world was created in literal, 24-hour days, made clear by repeating "and there was evening, and there was morning" for each day.  Why evening first?  Because in those days (and still in Jewish tradition), the day was taken to start at sunset.

Daniel Spangenberg (Sept 29, "Confusing personal view with fact") can observe for himself that the earth did NOT arise in 144 hours by looking at geological processes, the speed of formation of elements in stars, and other natural phenomena.  These have convinced scientists that the six-day creation story is just a myth.  This is scientific fact, not just my opinion.

Jaco Bruwer agrees, saying "the earth's atmosphere cleaned up over millions of years".

Niki Christie says that it all has to start somewhere.

In a paragraph edited out of my original letter, I pre-empted this by saying: "If some god were the creator, who created the god?  If that god was always there, why not cut out the middleman and accept that the universe itself was always there?  The simpler explanation is the most likely, by Occam's Razor."

If Niki Christie would like examples of contradictions in the Bible, she should compare the two creation sequences in Genesis 1 and 2, and the differing stories in Matthew and Luke about the birth of Jesus and particularly their radically conflicting genealogies of Jesus.  I can expand on this in a later letter.

My point is that the Bible is not true.  Hence it is not possible that it is the work of a truthful divine creator.

Conclusion: The Bible is fiction steeped in the mythology of its time.  It is no more reliable a handbook –on god or anything else– than Grimm's Fairy Tales.

Time for a Balanced Debate around Religion!

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Wed 22/09/2010 18:08, published without the parts in blue on 27 Sept 2010.

"The Star" always gives the last word on religion to Bob Holcombe, making it seem that there is no answer to his shallow arguments.  Will Sol Makgabutlane be sufficiently unbiased this time to break with tradition and publish my letter, as he has failed to do on several previous occasions?

Bob Holcombe's letter (Sept 17) "God only knows if there is life elsewhere" should not stand unchallenged.

He says that scientists are going beyond their field.  Not at all.  Anything that can be objectively investigated is the province of science.  If it can't be scientifically tested, it's speculation, superstition and nonsense.  As is Religion.

Mr Holcombe talks of a reason and a cause.  This is typical mumbo-jumbo.  Things just are, they don't need a reason and a cause.

If some god were the creator, who created the god?  If that god was always there, why not cut out the middleman and accept that the universe itself was always there?  The simpler explanation is the most likely, by Occam's Razor.

He says "God makes himself approachable" –what, through a hundred different religions that contradict each other and a Bible that contradicts itself?

And "God ... provided a logical account of how it all started".  Really?  We know from previous letters that Mr Holcombe believes the Bible.  Pity he appears not to have read it.  If he had, he would know that the Biblical account of Creation is both illogical and contradicted by observable facts.  The universe clearly did NOT arise in six days of 24 hours.  A schoolchild can tell you that day and night could not have existed before the sun.