Without evidence of benefit, an intervention should not be presumed to be beneficial or safe.

- Rogue Medic

Creationism and the Politics of Ignoring Reality – Part 1


National Review Online has an odd apologist for Creationism claiming that without the secular left, Creationism would not be a problem.

Of course, he does not appear to think that Creationism is a problem, only that criticism of Creationism is a problem.

Image credit. Click on images to make them laerger.

No one thinks about creationism more than the secular Left.[1]


There is an outbreak of Ebola virus in Guinea.

While Creationists will tell us that since humans and monkeys are not related, they cannot have the same diseases. However, Ebola virus comes to humans from monkeys. Monkey DNA and human DNA are almost identical. We have small genetic differences that make a big difference in genetic expression, but these are terms that have to do with science and Creationism is about rejecting science that makes the Creationists uncomfortable about their beliefs in their Gods.


Ebola will probably not make it to the US, this time, but it is expanding its range. We cannot make Ebola go away with prayer. We need medicine, which is based on valid science. The fewer people we have who understand biology, the longer it will take to find effective treatments.

To be sure, a small number of Christians fiercely and zealously defend the young-earth position, but their influence is vastly overstated by secular journalists who need them more than the church does.[1]


Journalists are creating a push to teach Creationism religion in science classrooms?

Apparently, it is only a small number, when David French is defending something by trying to get people to ignore it.

Why is a political writer so opposed to keeping non-science out of science education?

Science is not easy to understand and he appears to be upset that this version of Cosmos seems to explain science as well as the last version. For example, the eye is commonly used as an example of irreducible complexity, the Creationist way of saying, I don’t understand, therefore it is impossible.

Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the evolution of the eye pretty well in about 8 minutes below (I apologize for the advertising) –

Try an explanation from Richard Dawkins and Randolph Nesse.


At every stage of its development, the evolving eye functioned well enough to provide a selective advantage for survival and among animals alive today, we find eyes at all these stages of development – and all of them function.

The complexity of the human eye poses no challenge to evolution by natural selection. In fact the eye, and all of biology, makes no sense without evolution.[2]


There are no gaps in the evolution of the eye. We can see the various degrees of evolution of the eye in different species, including species with much better eyesight than our eyesight. So why do we assume that the claims of evolutionary gaps, from people who do not understand evolution, are true?

Do we ask the person who has trouble with a paper airplane to explain the theory of flight?

Do we ask the person who does not understand gravity to explain relativity?

The failure of Creationism may not even be because scientists do a better job of explaining science, but because of the ethical failures of those trying to discredit science. I will explain in Part 2.


[1] The Left’s Strange Obsession With Evangelical Creationism
By David French
April 1, 2014 2:19 PM
National Review Online

[2] Some of the Things That Molecules Do
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey
Season 1, Episode 2
Video at Hulu.com


Speak Your Mind