Creationism comes in many flavors

Creationism comes in many flavors. There are creationists which claim that the Earth is flat, while others believe it is round. Some of them think the Earth is in the middle of the universe, and some of them know better. There are some who claim the Earth is younger than ten millenniums, others accept the fact that it is 4.6 billion years old. Some of them even accept common descent! But all of them know that evolution is false. How do they know? Because their interpretation of the Bible suggests that to them, and if it were true, they would have to actually look at the world and try to understand it, and look at the Bible, and reinterpret it accordingly. And that is way too much work. They would rather keep making things up, and pretending not to notice they are in deep disagreement amongst themselves.

Our Cousins the Monkeys

Why are creationists so concerned about humans being related to the rest of the apes? What is so wrong about having a common ancestor with them? Well, the real problem is not so much of having to work out an interpretation of the Bible that does not conflict with it. After all, every Christian out there who reads the Bible, except maybe for Fred Phelps and his kind, which is destined for extinction, is willing to explain away passages that clearly favor tortured morality, infanticide, whatever, or obviously wrong facts, such as the Earth being on top of four columns.

The real problem creationists have with a common ancestor is that they think it makes us humankind less special than they wish it were. Well, wake up, face it! You are not granted being special. You will have to put some effort on it. I think having the opportunity of consciousness, and being able to set our own goals for our life is pretty special anyway. Monkeys are our Cousins. So what?

A creationist caught lying.

Creationists pretend to teach the rest of the world moral standards, and purport to possess the truth. Most of them are just plain ignorant, but some of them are straight liars. Take for example the following article by Thomas Heinze, titled: Science 'Discovers' We All Have Common Ancestors.

First of all, Science has long known that all humans, and in fact all life on Earth, has a common ancestor. Obviously, Heinze is either not too well versed in science, or pretends not to know.

Second, commenting on the findings that the Most Recent Common Ancestor may have lived around 5000 BC, according to a particular computer simulation (others report a possible date of 1 AD!), Heinze states that: "For the Bible believer, this is no surprise. Two events fit into that time frame: Adam and Eve started the first family and a little later Noah started it all over again when he stepped off the Ark." However, Heinze neglects to mention that at that moment, the Most Recent Common Ancestor shared the Earth with between 5 and 20 million humans. Where did I find this data? The U.S. census bureau, the same source Heinze uses to explain how world population increased to the current levels. How come he failed to notice the amount of people living in 5000 BC, or 10000 BC? This is called lying!

Third, Heinze comes to a conclusion on how evolution should have happened, directly contradicting the principles of Darwin's theory: "If humans have evolved as evolutionists claim, most of it should have happened within the time covered by history, because that is when most people have lived." No, that's not Darwin's story. Evolution says that apes evolved over the course of millions of years, resulting in the current species of apes, which include humans, among others. If Heinze thinks himself qualified to ridicule evolution, why does he turn out to be ignorant on what evolution says? I think he is lying again.

Finally, Heinze brings in the known evolutionist canard of Darwin doubting his theory when asking: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?" Has Heinze bothered to check the context in which Darwin writes this? Here is how the quote continues: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed..." Again, Heinze is either ignorant, or blatantly lying.

Why do people like Heinze resort to presenting a false version of the theory of evolution? Either they never bothered to check what the real one says, or they purposely misrepresent it, perhaps because they know that so far they have not come up with arguments to prove it false. I am willing to give Heinze the credit of an education on the topic, and therefore I necessarily conclude that he is lying. Why, then, does he lie? Is it because he thinks you cannot handle the truth? Who is he to think for you?

Does accepting evolution negate God?

Rotundly not! Evolution is a fact. If you think God exists, better make sure It accounts for reality. If you stopped believing that 2+2=4, you have a problem. If you believe the Earth is flat, you have a problem. If you believe Evolution is a lie, you have a problem.
Did anyone tell you believing in evolution is unchristian? Do not let them lie to you. There are plenty of Christians that know better. When they see God's subtle and wonderful way of letting the world evolve and shape over time, they cannot fail to feel awe. Letting themselves go of the burden of having to interpret the bible literally must be quite a relief for them. No more having to justify a character which seems to encompass the worst feelings of humankind: arrogant, full of vanity, petty, revengeful, arbitrary. It is time for the rest of Christians to acknowledge that parts of the bible speak more of human nature than of God's, and use whatever good moral teachings are left in the book. Everybody would be better off.

How to disprove evolution

Creationists that aim to disprove evolution should realize that they have a daunting task in front. Evidence for evolution continues to pour from not only fields related to biology such as genetics or taxonomy, but also chemistry, physics, or even mathematics.

Are you a bible literalist? Even if you could disprove evolution, your bible would not be safe. In order to hold your bible as true you would still need to disprove major discoveries in geology or astronomy, such as the fact that the Universe is billions of years old, and so is the Earth. Or that the Earth is round and is not the center of the Solar system. Oh, you actually accept these last two statements? If so, on what grounds? Why are you willing to do interpretive contortions of the bible in these cases, but not with the age of the Earth, or evolution? Oh, I forgot. There is that big problem of us sharing ancestry with monkeys, worms, and everything else, and accepting that would be terrible for your self-esteem. Well, grow up and deal with reality! Your denial of proven facts makes your God look ridiculous.

Welcome to my Blog on Evolution and Creation

I realize that there is already plenty of literature on the web addressing this topic. So much, in fact, that it would be easy to lose perspective, and forget that the conflict between Evolution and Creation is a fabrication by a certain outdated way of understanding religion that needs to fade away.
Most religious people with an education in science know that evolution is true, and are wise enough to either keep their faith and their rationality in separate compartments, when it comes to points of conflict between them, or rethink their theological grounds to make the case for a creator that uses evolution as a tool to shape the world.
If you believe that evolution is false, then you are either ignorant, deluded, or lying. Maybe it is time you examined your beliefs and motivations.

I am also working on a website that will try to give more insight on why dismissing evolution is wrong: Eppurevolution