The fundamentalist difference

December 4, 2008 by lestro

by lestro

What a lot of creationists don’t understand is that evolution is not a world view, but is instead simply an explanation, and one that changes when new evidence is discovered.

Unlike the world of creationists, in which an ideological world view is laid out and everything must conform to it.

For example, according to creationist reasoning, there is no special section in the Bible talking about dinosaurs, therefore dinosaurs and man must have existed at the same time, damn the fossil record, carbon dating and whatever other evidence that science might offer. Nevermind the obvious, that if they existed at the same time, you’d think it would be mentioned in the fucking Bible, as Bill Hicks said.

In a recent NYT article, this difference is again made clear as recent experiments have completely blown away a long-standing theory of what the beginnings of the planet looked like, forcing scientists to adapt their views based on the new evidence.

You’ll never see a fundie do that.

Analyses of crystals in rocks in Australia, left, have formed a new picture of the early Earth, depicted with young oceans in the painting at right. (Left, Bruce Watson; right, Don Dixon)

Over the last decade, the mineralogical analysis of small hardy crystals known as zircons embedded in old Australian rocks has painted a picture of the Hadean period “completely inconsistent with this myth we made up,” Dr. Harrison said. Geologists now almost universally agree that by 4.2 billion years ago, the Earth was a pretty placid place, with both land and oceans. Instead of hellishly hot, it may have frozen over. Because the young Sun put out 30 percent less energy than it does today, temperatures on Earth might have been cold enough for parts of the surface to have been covered by expanses of ice.

Called the Hadean period because it was thought to resemble the hot, volatile magma-scapes usually identified with the underworld, analysis of the new rocks show the period to be almost exactly the opposite of what the planet was really like at the time.

It also helps explain the beginnings of life better, as the old, volcanic view of the time was not all that conducive to early life forms.

“The picture that’s emerging is a watery world with normal rock recycling processes,” said Stephen J. Mojzsis, a professor of geology at the University of Colorado who was not involved with the U.C.L.A. research. “And that’s a comforting thought for the origin of life.” […]

In the new view of the early Earth, life could have emerged hundreds of millions of years earlier. “This means the door is open for a long, slow chemical evolution,” Dr. Mojzsis said. “The stage was set for life probably 4.4 billion years ago, but I don’t know if the actors were present.”

While all of this is fascinating, it once again points out the differences in the fundie and scientific arguments. While scientists can always come up with new theories when new evidence arrives, creationists can’t and can only get more stubborn and more out-of-touch.

Creationists look at the world through a rigid, unchanging world view, therefore any new science or evidence must be massaged and crammed into that world view, no matter how radical and stupid it may be.

Dinosaur bones dating back millions of year? Not possible. Either your methods are flawed or God is testing your faith. Because all those animals must have existed in the Garden of Eden at the same time and that is that.

Or, or, or – how’s this – there’s a designer who made everything exactly as it is and should be. The appendix? We can’t comprehend the workings of such an intelligence…

The build up to Iraq was the same way: a rigid world view that all evidence and intelligence – no matter how contradictory – had to fit into.

and that’s dangerous.

in so many ways.