Frank R. Zindler’s essay, “Creation Science” and the Fact of Evolution1 from “The Probing Mind” appears in the American Atheists official website. It is an essay with a rare combination of faulty assumptions, baseless claims, hypocrisy, and what appears to be good old fashioned childish name-calling.
He claims that the book of Genesis posits a “magical” creation. That creationists, or as he calls them “the creationist legions of darkness,” are “devoid of any understanding of logic.” This is because they believe that life was “miraculously zapped onto the earth” and that they believe in “supernatural shenanigans.” And they are “brainwashed by myths.”
Mr. Zindler states:
“Just as it is impossible for a fool to be wise, so too is it impossible for creationism to be science. Science, however, involves the study of natural forces only, and ceases to be science when it attempts to explain phenomena by means of super-natural forces.”
Mr. Zindler has presented us an atheistic redefinition of what science is and what it is not. His is a philosophy of science that would have been rejected by the very same people who invented the scientific method and those who established every major field of science (please see our articles List of Scientists).
Mr. Zindler goes on to explain:
“Creationism, far from being a science, is actually a special department of fundamentalist apologetics. Its commission is to defend the biblical book of Genesis, which posits the magical and sudden creation of all forms of life on the planet just a few thousand years ago, teaches that all human beings are descended from one pair of white people_”
It is a shame that he did not cite any creation scientists to the effect that Adam and Eve were “white people.” Apparently it is enough to make an emotionally charged statement that carries racist and ignorant overtones-caucasophobia.
Mr. Zindler states:
“most creationists are so devoid of any understanding of logic that it is not at all rare to hear one claim, ‘If I can disprove Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the only thing left is the biblical theory.’”
It is a shame that he did not cite any creation scientists who made such a statement. One single citation of one single author would have been most welcomed since apparently the statement “is not at all rare.” The fact is that the first theory that creationists must deal with is Darwinism. Also, where many creation scientists live, the USA, Australia, Europe, Darwinism is virtually a state religion-federally funded indoctrination. Moreover, many creation myths from many cultures are claimed, by those very cultures, to be nothing more than moral, mythical or symbolic stories. If, for example, Hindus want to experiment as to whether the universe really is a dream that a deity is having while it is asleep on a flower that is growing out from another deity’s bellybutton, we should let them attempt it “_he is a god_perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened!” (1st Kings 18:27).
Zindler further states:
“even if one could show that all available explanations for how evolutionary change occurs were incorrect, the evidences showing that evolution has occurred would remain.”
From here he wastes a lot of time attempting to prove that evolution has occurred. But he seems to overlook the fact that creationists do not deny that “evolution” has occurred. However, we cannot simply blame Mr. Zindler for this oversight since there seems to be a confusion of terminology in creation/evolution discussions. Creationists believe in a certain kind of evolution and evolutionists define “evolution” as any and every change (please see our article Do you Believe in Evolution?). Creationists understand that factors such as natural selection play a part in change within a species. The strict observations and scientific facts within Darwinian theory are accepted but the philosophy and world-view are not. Such is the case with the sexism and racism reflected by Darwin himself (see the bottom of this article for examples).
Mr. Zindler attempts to correct what he claims is an error of creationism which allegedly:
“misuses the term theory_In scientific usage, a theory is the highest form of scientific understanding. A theory is an explanatory hypothesis which has passed test after test, and is still the best available explanation of the facts in question.”
It must be understood that, as Richard Lewontin has admitted, the naturalistic faith has concocted a pseudo-scientific method that is meant to prove naturalism and close their eyes to any evidence for a creator. Naturalists/materialists change facts/evidence in order to fit their theory instead of changing their theory to fit the facts/evidence.
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural_we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”2
Scott C. Todd; Department of Biology; Kansas State University:
“Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”3
Mr. Zindler continues by stating that a “component of creationism” is a belief in:
“the divine creation of a young universe with all of its components bearing the false imprint of great age.”
It is a shame that he did not cite any creation scientists who made such a statement. The fact is that catastrophism, such as a world wide flood, does leave behind “the false imprint of great age.” Thus, it is not that creationists believe that God created a young universe to appear old but that catastrophes have made it appear old. An example of one such catastrophe is the eruption of Mount St. Helens which within hours produced a “mini Grand Canyon” complete with layered canyon walls (some articles on this issue are found here and here). Also consider that according to time dilation as postulated by the General Theory of Relativity millions of years could have elapsed in some parts of the universe while mere days elapse on Earth (see Dr. Russ Humphery’s Starlight and Time).Moreover, while within the realm of Darwinian evolution and atheism the concept of appearance of age is mocked, the concept of appearance of design is embraced:
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1,
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit, p. 138,
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
In a section entitled The Logic Of Evolution Mr. Zindler states:
“Observation 1: Living things come only from living things. Spontaneous generation is not possible when living things are already in existence.”
Of course, the whole point of naturalism/materialism is to prove that living things did not come from living things. They claim, without proof, that life began by spontaneous generation from nonliving matter but they conveniently cannot prove it because it can no longer happen. Therefore, since the observation/experimentation proves that it does not occur today, they claim that it used to-apparently lack of proof is now proof.
Zindler claims that oxidation occurs because:
“oxygen in our atmosphere is placed there by photosynthetic organisms such as plants and algae_the primordial terrestrial atmosphere was almost completely devoid of oxygen until these types of organisms arose.”
It appears that Mr. Zindler’s knowledge of early Earth atmosphere is outdated by about a half century or so:
“This atmosphere was probably more strongly reducing then the actual atmosphere of early Earth. Modern volcanoes emit CO, CO2, N2, and water vapor, and it is likely that these gases were abundant in the ancient atmosphere.”4
He also claims that nowadays:
“Existing microbes and other life-forms consume as food any prebiotic molecules starting out on the long biochemical pathway leading to truly living systems.”
This fact makes one wonder what the original life form that came from non-living matter ate.
Next Mr. Zindler states:
“Contrary to the claims of some creationists, evolutionists do not claim that reptiles evolved into birds, and birds evolved into mammals!”
It is a shame that he did not cite any creation scientists who made such a statement.
Zindler further states:
“The infamous ‘gaps in the fossil record,’ adduced by creationists as evidence against evolution, are actually a devastating refutation of the idea that all forms of life were miraculously zapped onto the earth at the same time!”
For some odd reason he does not bother to mention why there are “gaps,” nor how they conform to the theory of evolution. The “gaps,” which do not conform with Darwinian gradualism are the reason that Goldschmidt postulated his “hopeful monster” theory and why Gould postulated his “punctuated equilibrium” theory. In any regard, creationism has no problems with changes within a species nor with quick jumps.
Mr. Zindler could not get through a discussion of evolution without coming to his own faith based belief-Darwinism’s magic bullet:
“Given enough time.”
In the Darwinian would view “given enough time” means that we do not need proof. Given enough time anything could happen. Moreover, when they are asked for actual evidence instead of story telling about how thing could have happened a long, long time ago, they shoot the bullet again and state that given enough time the evidence will surely be found-somewhere, somehow, sometime. The holy trinity of Darwinianism is time, chance and matter.
Mr. Zindler has a section in which he seeks to refute theistic evolution and we certainly will allow him to do so. However, he makes an odd and very presumptive assumption to the effect that:
“theistic evolution is associated, it would appear, with an emotional immaturity.”
In reality, and in a nutshell, theistic evolutionists seem to water down both the Bible and Darwinism in order to create a concoction of a theory.
Also, Mr. Zindler exalts personages such as himself thusly:
“Mature personalities can accept the world for what it is: uncreated and unconscious.”
Apparently, maturity and enlightenment require purposelessness and meaninglessness.
Mr. Zindler hypocritically does that which he accuses creationists of doing, he sets up a straw man:
“Atheists know that cancer and tapeworms are not parts of a divine plan. Atheists are completely free to do something about such plagues – and they are doing it!”
This statement reveals Mr. Zindler’s faulty view of the Christian world-view-cancer and tapeworms are not a part of the original creation but a part of the fall (which will someday be restored). Moreover, he shockingly, appears to think that theists, believing that cancer and tapeworms are a part of God’s creation, do not and would not do anything to cure plagues such as cancer. Need more be said besides that this is an utterly preposterous statement.
Mr. Zindler appeals to Ockham’s Razor:
“This is the principle in logic that basic assumptions should not be multiplied beyond necessity. If natural forces alone are adequate to account for the course of evolution, why posit additional supernatural forces? Such forces are superfluous. It is simpler to stick with the observable, measurable forces of nature.”
Yet, could we not, just as easily state:
If supernatural forces alone are adequate to account for the course of evolution, why posit additional merely natural forces? Such forces are superfluous. It is simpler to stick with the observable, measurable forces of nature and understand that they were designed by a creator. In other words, why is Mr. Zindler’s concept the fall back position and creationism the unnecessary complexity? Certainly the statistical improbability that brings Darwinian evolution before it even starts, and at every theorized step along its way, is the complexity and the violation of Ockham’s Razor since Ockham’s Razor Cuts Both Ways.
Francis Crick, atheist and Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”5
Zindler simply overlooks the fact that all ancient cultures have within their most ancient beliefs records of belief in one supreme God, of a creation, of a pristine garden, of a worldwide flood, of a handful of survivors, of some kind of separation from God and of a way of restoration. We presume that these fact would be simply thrown out ipso facto by Mr. Zindler because they cannot to observed of experimented upon in a laboratory. Yet, we do not ask of history that it be verified in this way. Yet, for a person whose worldview is fleeting, being based on the ever changing facts of the scientific pronouncements de jour, eyewitness accounts, history, archaeology and the likes are less important than lab work.
“But now ask the beasts, and they will teach you; and the birds of the air,and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you;and the fish of the sea will explain to you.Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this,in whose hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind?”
Job 12:7-10
Darwin’s Battle of the Sexes and Races
“Man is more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger, but whether or not proportionately to his larger body, has not, I believe, been fully ascertained_Difference in the Mental Powers of the two Sexes.-With respect to differences of this nature between man and woman, it is probable that sexual selection has played a highly important part. I am aware that some writers doubt whether there is any such inherent difference; but this is at least probable from the analogy of the lower animals which present other secondary sexual characters.”
Here Darwin point out differences in temperament between the bull and cow, wild-boar and sow, stallion and mare and the males of the larger apes from the females.He then continues:
“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman-whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands_if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman_man has ultimately become superior to woman.”6
“many of the wilder races of man are apt to suffer much in health when subjected to changed conditions or habits of life_man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilised races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.”7
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes_will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”8
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.