Given the recent decision made by the Kansas Board of Ignorance… er… Education, I thought I'd share with you some insights into the mind of a typical Creationist…

I've dealt with Creationists over the years, mostly online. Ever since my first foray into the virtual world (late 1993 was my debut), I've hung out in atheist-oriented forums. My first was the bulletin boards over at Prodigy. (This was before they'd even instituted chat rooms.) And it seemed there was always a Creationist present.

Over the years, I've dropped in on other forums, from AOL chat rooms to chats on Powwow and ICQ, to bulletin boards in such places as Six Degrees or Freedom Forum, and currently the DebunkCreation e-mail list. And I can't seem to get away from Creationists.

But by far my most in-depth confrontation with one began several months ago, when I received an email from a visitor to the Attic. This happens all the time, of course, but this message really had me befuddled. It was an email that was blatantly anti-evolution, and essentially condemned my site for being pro-evolution.

This was interesting, because I think only one of my many dozen articles really even mentions evolution. Maybe he saw my Darwin fish on the Bumperstickers page. I don't know.

At any rate, I replied to his silly email, and the next thing I knew, I was embarking on a weird and wacky journey: a full-blown debate with a Creationist.

I don't know how many of you have ever engaged in this rather quixotic task, but for those of you who never have, I offer this word of advice: "Don't."

It's a waste of time, really. Not only that, it'll frustrate the socks off of you. Creationists (as a whole) know diddly-crap about real science. Honest. It's almost frightening. And every attempt to educate your Creationist opponent will meet with… well, with nothing. Most likely, the suggestion of reading up on real science will be completely ignored.

Tell you what. I'll let my "friend," Chad, show you in his own words.

Early on in our debate (his second email to me, I believe), he came out with this little gem:

Believing that life started from a cosmic accident without any intellingence makes no sense. Here's a simple equation

Energy+Non-intellingence=destruction
Energy+Intellingence=order

Any idea what that's supposed to mean? No? Me, neither. But this is a good example of what Creationists do: they use things that sound scientific (to them) to support their statements. It's all baloney, of course, but it seems that as long as it sounds scientific, it's good for them to use.

Of course, it always amazes me how Creationists will use science when it seems to support their cause, yet ridicule science whenever it supports evolution.

For example:

Polunium, and radio halos, heard of it? The halos show the earth's magma cooled faster than millions of years, as fast as HOURS to be precise.

It was obvious to me that he was simply parroting something spouted in Creationist literature. It was equally obvious to me that the literature put quite a bias on this research. In fact, the polonium/radio halo studies only give an incomplete model, and the results are exceedingly questionable. Yet the "quick cool" theory of origin supports a Creationist perspective, so Creationists love to use it.

Here are a few more choice funnies from the guy:

The Apollo 11 spacecraft had "snow shoe" type landing gear in fear of sinking into it.

The "it" he was referring to was lunar dust. He meant that scientists thought there might be many feet of dust on the surface. In truth, almost none of them thought this could be the case. As a big space exploration aficionado, I found this to be hilarious.

If I left carbon gas out long enough, would it turn into humans?

I guess he thinks "carbon-based life form" means entirely made of carbon. Behold, the Coal People!

The ENTIRE fossil record is based on accounts in just Europe and Asia.

I'll bet that's news to all the field researchers digging up bones all over the other continents, including all the paleontologists right here in Utah.

Evolution brings racism (each race is in different Evolutionary order), pornography (no morals), abortion (our bodies are just the act of accident of conception). Marriage, instituted by God, is meaningless, people are homosexual (Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve).

I don't even know where this came from… Left field is way too close.

If evolution is true what goes?
marriage
purpose of life
love

Again… what?

Two humans had to evolve at the same evolution. time and place, having complementary reproductive systems. If one system wasn't complete or compatible, the species would become extinct.

I guess he thinks men and women are two different species, huh? (Some out there might agree with him, but come on… be nice.)

Maria, is the good majority on our side of the moon. Without it, the moon would be a mirror, keeping the animals from sleeping at night.

I don't know who first thought this one up, but it's a cute one! Later he explained that if such large sections of the moon weren't a bit darker than others (the "seas," or maria, he refers to), the moon would be incredibly bright. Guess it never occurs to him that there are plenty of animals, including humans, who sleep just fine in light even as bright as the sun, let alone the moon. Not to mention many species of animals that are nocturnal. Like teenagers.

And my favorite line of all the emails:

I'm not easily suckered into something.

Need I even comment?

But Chad's words were, of course, not his own. He was simply repeating garbage he'd read from Creationist web sites, most likely. And these sites are numerous. Just take a look, if you don't believe me. It's almost frightening how widespread they are.

Creationist propaganda is insidious. It plays on the ignorance of the masses and their desire to believe in the bible. And even though they have not one shred of evidence, their arguments are quite convincing to the ignorant. (They seem to feel that their opinions are equivalent to evidence. Go figure.)

In a way, this isn't too surprising. The United States is terribly illiterate when it comes to science. We have some of the greatest scientists in the world, including some who are quite good at explaining science to the layperson. (The late Carl Sagan springs to mind.) But the general populace is woefully ignorant of science. Decisions like that of the Kansas BOE would never happen in Europe, where emphasis on science is actually stressed in schools. (Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of Creationists are found here in the States. And the only Creationist movements found elsewhere are all started by members of the Institute for Creation Research, located here.)

It's obvious that Creationists rank solidly among those with no true knowledge of science. And this is evidenced by their utter misunderstanding of evolution, and many of the ludicrous claims they put forth. But see, they think they understand evolution. And they base their arguments frequently on what they believe evolution to be, not what it really is.

One of their favorite arguments, if not the favorite, is the micro- versus macro-evolution argument. Here it is, in Chad's view, from assorted emails:

Scientists think that because micro-evolution occurs (variation within a species, not evolution) that macro-evolution occurs (species giving birth to other species.)

Micro evolution is NOT evolution. They gave a different name to variation.
Variation as in dogs and roses. Husky and a beagle

Don't you understand that humans give birth to humans? If not, when do we?

MACRO EVOLUTION IS NOT MICRO EVOLUTION NOR DOES THE FACT THAT MICRO EVOLUTION EXISTS MEANS THAT MACRO EVOLUTION DOES.

Get the idea that this is a biggie? It doesn't matter to Creationists that micro- and macro-evolution are, when it comes right down to it, absolutely identical on a molecular level. The same things are going on. Creationists do, nowadays, accept micro-evolution (evolution within a species) as fact. But despite the existence of solid evidence of "macro-evolution," they deny it.

What evidence? Scientific experiments involving different species. Fruit flies are just one example. Very useful for such experiments due to their short lifespans and rapid reproduction. In one experiment, a bunch of fruit flies of the same specie were randomly divided into two groups. The groups were not allowed to breed with each other. After several generations, the two groups were reunited. And they were unable to reproduce with each other. The were now, by a commonly accepted definition, two different species.

But Creationists deny the validity of this. Why? Because it was "artificial." Humans caused it to happen… it didn't happen of its own accord.

As though this makes a bit of difference.

Another favorite argument is the myth of the "missing link." Fifty years ago, this might have been a valid point, but not any longer. It's true that the evolution of humans is not 100% defined. For example, it is open to debate whether Australopithecus africanus is in the direct line of human descent, between Australopithecus afarensis and later forms, or whether it was a branch that led to another line of hominids. But nowhere is there a truly "missing" link. And despite the fact that this information is readily available, Creationists still jump on alleged "gaps" in the fossil record.

They talk about a lack of "transitional" fossils. But transitionals are everywhere in the fossil record. Creationists, however, don't accept them as such. They see a fossil of something that was obviously transitional between two species (such as archaeopteryx) and say, "No, that's this animal, not a transitional between these two." To them, a transitional evidently means some completely alien thing that no one can identify. It never occurs to them that transitional creatures existed in abundance and…golly!…we have names for them!

Creationists also always bring up the "great flood" of the Bible. The flood is the cornerstone to their arguments. Everything, they claim, can be explained by it. As Chad puts it:

Over 100 civilizations have a world wide flood legend. Many mention an ark/vessel and Noah. Not evidence for the flood or God?

Well, no. Not a speck. Of course, the flood myth brings up so many, many issues that are fatally flawed. But Chad and his Creationist friends seem to find it remarkable that so many cultures have talked about a great flood. Why should this be remarkable? The vast majority of civilizations have, of necessity, been built up around bodies of water. Bodies of water tend to flood. People die in floods; property is destroyed. It's a horrible thing. So if the mythos of these cultures were going to include an end-of-the-world scenario, it would simply make sense that they made it be something with which they were already familiar: floods.

Chad followed this up with:

So that wooden structure found on a mountain in Turkey is a Russian fishing boat?

In fact, it wasn't a boat at all, or even wood, but a natural geological structure. Rocks sticking out of the mountain looking like the hull of a boat, essentially. There's never been any boat found in the mountains of Turkey.

But the flood concept is critical to Creationists. To them, the flood is the only possible explanation for our fossil records. They have all kinds of hokey explanations of how the fossil record was put into layers, but none of them… if you'll pardon me… hold water. (Like how tree and plant fossils can be at the top of the fossil record. Being rooted, they should all be at the bottom.)

They will assert repeatedly that geological evidence supports the flood theory 100% (while also showing evolution to be false). Like their claims that the bible is scientifically accurate, this one is also completely wrong. Geological evidence doesn't do jack to support a flood theory, and does plenty to support evolution.

Note how I said flood theory. No Creationist will tolerate it being called a theory, but will always point out that evolution is a "theory." How can they be expected to take it seriously when scientists still call it a theory, not something proven? They don't understand that science doesn't deal with "proof." Even gravity is a theory. It's a fact, of course. But according to science, it's still a theory. And that's because "theory" in scientific parlance is completely different than "theory" in common usage. But no Creationist will accept this, it seems.

But do you know what the most frustrating thing is about conversing with a Creationist? It's the fact that, no matter how many times you suggest it, no matter how many references you give, no matter how important it is… a Creationist will not do any kind of research into real science. None. At all. The only books they'll read about evolution are ones written by other Creationists. I have yet to meet a Creationist who will learn basic biology, basic chemistry, basic anything.

And this goes beyond the previously mentioned scientific illiteracy. These are people who aren't even learning what little science our schools actually do teach.

Well into our email exchanges, I learned that Chad was a lad of only fifteen. Given the above quotes from him, with the improper grammar, bad punctuation, and atrocious spelling, you might be thinking, "How could you not have realized this before he told you?" Simple. Almost every Creationist I've ever spoken with has sounded like a kid. Yes, there are rare exceptions, but when you get down to their arguments, you realize that they, too, didn't pay attention in high school science courses, though they obviously did in English.

Chad stopped corresponding with me, without warning, about four months ago. I still don't know why. There was nothing in my final email to him that was rude or otherwise derogatory. Throughout our correspondence, he kept insisting that he would quit emailing me if I told him to stop. But I never did. In fact, I urged him to continue writing to me.

Part of this was because I didn't want him to get in the last word and think he'd "won" our little debate. But once I learned his age, I really didn't want to stop.

You see, it was at age fifteen that I began questioning my religion. And I guess I hoped that some of the things I said to Chad would make him begin seriously questioning things, too.

Maybe that's why he quit corresponding. Maybe something I said in the tens of thousands of words we exchanged actually sank in. Maybe he visited the sites at Talk.Origins and saw a glimmer of truth.

Maybe. But I doubt it.

Most likely, he saw our conversation as being every bit as frustrating as I did. Even now, he's probably parroting his tired arguments on another unsuspecting person.

I'm hoping it's not you.

E-mail me!