An old friend, a very good friend as a matter a fact, recommended for me to read some creationist websites. So, I did. I will here give you my view of their content and the world view they seem to be selling. This is not an intentional assault on faith, or what anyone wants to hold sacred. However, if you, my reader, want to retain faith in creationism, I suggest you read no further. Otherwise you might have to ask yourself the questions that rose to my mind when I read about creationism, by creationists. The critique I here present is completely my own. I am no expert on geology, or biology, but since the creationist pages have obviously been meant to be understood by the laymen in these fields, I see no problem in handling them as a layman myself.

The creationism seems to me as an attempt to counter the results of scientific research when they contradict the holy book of one particular religion, and do not give any thought to wether their claims would make other religious and mythical stories of creation any more plausible, or not. In my opinion, the same methods could have been used to disclaim scientific research for any myth about the origins of life and the creation of the Earth. 

The actual point is that there are people who feel their faith to be threatened by what science reveals. Most people in the world do not see it that way. Most people have so little education, as to even know that science does not support any religious world views. Is this the result of most scientists to be atheists? Is this the result of atheist scientists somehow controlling the scientific field and paradigm of entire world wide science community? If either of these matters are so, then why would that be? Has scientific knowledge made scientists less prone to have religious faith? The only thing that binds scientists to eachother is their interest in knowledge. It is hardly a result of any international conspiracy of atheist scientists to take over all the fields of science and ridicule those scientists whose research would support one or another religion. How could that even be possible to achieve? I have no statistics to show you, but I would think it is most likely that even today in our world most scientists are adherents of some religion, though as with all the other people, more as a result of tradition, than personal choice or revelation. It would be inconcievable that all those people would allow themselves to be ruled over by some atheist bullies, who have counterfited all of the results of their research to diminsh the role of a creator god. Would it not? That all of the scientific knowledge we today hold would be just made up false and intended by evil scientists to lead people astray from salvation and truth. Does that sound even possible?

If any particular religion and the stories in their holy books and other traditions would be true we could expect the scientific research to support those stories over and over again. This is not the case. In fact it is the opposite. Scientific research shows over and over again that the religious stories, of the creation, and otherwise are quite obviously the results of human imagination at work. Science can not explain everything. Not at the moment at least. The unexplained matters are the loopholes and niches where gods and the spirit world takes refuge. Little by little we become more aware of the mechanics that make the universe work, and every little revelation of research results takes us further away from the suggestions made by religious leadership alledgedly inspired by gods.

Most of the fields of science have resulted in research that points out that the world is a lot older than what the genealogies of the Bible would let us believe. In fact the theories and paradigms in astronomy, geology, biology, anthorpology, sociology, psychology, archaeology and history support the idea of the universe, the Earth and life to be billions of years old. Even the major sects of the same religion, as the creationist movement recognizes, have embraced this scientific world view, though as religions they naturally have not excluded the supernatural. Neither has science. Not as such. Science does not deal in the field of supernatural, because as a concept the supernatural evades the material universe. The supernatural is a question of faith. Faith in the for-ever-improvable. You see, when lightning was first explained as a natural phenomenon, it stopped to be part of the supernatural. The supernatural is a description of things we have no natural explanation to. Religion, is an attempt to explain the unexplained, from a human perspective. In my view it is a personal matter wether you believe lightning was caused by a god, be it Yahweh or Thor, but today we do know, it does not require either andropomorphic personifications of natural powers to exist. It may happen as a result of natural weather phenomenons and it is quite random.

I have no space here to go through all the wild claims made on the creationist sites, but I will give you few examples as a taste as to how they work. First, the adaptation. The creationists claim that all the living beings were created at once, or in seven days as claimed by the Bible. That there has happened no evolution, and the alteration of species visible to us is just adaptation. That god made all the creatures to be adapted to their enviroments, but they have only altered themselves in the few thousand year span the world has existed according to their interpretation of the Bible.

However, when we look at the bonestructure of a whale, there is evidence of evolution. Whales have legbones they do not use for anything. They are remains of hindlegs their ancestors had. Either that, or you can not possibly call such a creation intelligent. Why would a god create seamammals with secondary set of bones of hindlegs for nothing?

Second example are the dinosaurs and sedimentation. The creationists say that the dinosaurs were those animals that did not make it to the ark made by Noah, when the god of Jews decided to flood all the earth. We are supposed to believe, that the lower sedimentation of earth, where the dinosaur fossils are found, were formed just few thousand years ago, just prior to the great flood described in the Bible, or during it. They even give reasons as to why it is hard to find humans among the fossils from the earlier sedimentations where the various dinosaurs fossils are buried. It is reasonable enough from a surface glance, to claim that there were so few humans then that they propably would not appear in the fossilic record from that time, but what of all the other animals? Where are all the elephant remains from those sedimentations? Why are they not found in the jurassic layers and where are all the elk, and the rest of the mammals? Were mammals so rare in that world of beasts that they simply did not leave any fossils?

Why are the animals in precambrian layers completely different from the jurassic layers? And why are the fossils in the deeper layers so much more simpler than those of the later layers? The entire claim that those are just few thousand years old and that the creatures there once all existed simultaneously is proposterous.

Third example are the similarities between fossils and modern animals. The creationist would claim, that the similarities indicate that all of creation and every species existed allready in the beginning of life. Of course there are ancient fossils of similar animals, that still exist today. It is noteworthy to see what those animals are. The oldest ones in the deepest layers are the most simple forms of life. The fact that their offspring still remain unchainged, allmost unevolved, only proves that they were allready then, when the particular animals died millions of years ago and have ever since been, just perfect to their environment and had no pressure to change in order to survive. Most often the very oldest unchanged types of animals are the ones who live in the environments that have faced least change, like in the depths of the oceans. On the bottom of the seabed there is little knowledge of ice age, or volcanoes that dramatically change the athmosphere and landscape.

If the Bible is not factual about the supernatural nature of the creation, how can we assume that the stories of salvation and afterlife are true either? If the creation is just a myth, does it not indicate that the afterlife and salvation are also mere myths? What is the actual difference between the supernatural explanations of these two?

One would expect seamammals to survive a flood. Yet we have a number of whale fossils of types of animals not known to exist today. Why did they all go extinct? Why is it that the more primitive forms of whales have disappeared? On the other hand there are billions of types of animals in the world today that would have not survived  such an incident as a flood high enough to bear a ship to Mount Ararat. Not all of them could possibly fit into the ark. Did they just climb onto high mountains and survived that way? There are higher mountain ranges in the world than Ararat. If they did, why did none of the great saurian beasts climb there? Or any of the smaller sauropod lizards, for that matter? How did the saber tooth tigers all die in the flood? Their bones have been found near mountain ranges and they were quite agile beasts. Surely at least enough of the great airborne saurians could have managed to reach safety fast enough. How can it be the flood drowned all these mighty and agile animals, but the sloth survived? The sloth is an animal found only in the jungles of South America, so it could have not been aboard the Ark. It is a good climber to trees, but if the flood was high enough to bring a boat to the top of Mount Ararat, there is simply no tree tall enough for the sloth to climb into to survive. It could have decided to climb the mountains, but it really is not equipped to do so, and even, if that was the case, the Allosaurs would have surely outrunned it, possibly only stopping to eat the sloth wich are quite helpless on the ground.

Personally I doubt the ability of the sloth to come to a conclusion it needed to hit the road and “run” for higher ground when it started to rain a lot. Logic dictates that if a flood high enough to carry a boat to Mount Ararat forced the fauna of areas too far for the animals to reach the Ark, to take refuge in the mountains, the herbivoires would have been first victims and most species of herbivores that exist today would have persihed in such confined conditions. Most insects withoug the ability to fly would have simply vanished from the world. Of course the resulting death toll would have also been terrible for the carnivores later.

How is it, that for example the Comodo dragon survived the great flood only to end up on one little island? Did the ancestors of this beast ride in the Ark or did they climb some mountain ranges? It can not swim so how did it end up on the island? There were a lot more agile predators among the saurian beasts, so how did they not survive, but this ugly mugger did? There is of course allways the possibility of a friek accident, but it is by far the only animal that we need to ask the same questions about? How did the giant tortoises of the Seychelles, Mascarenes, Galapagos and the Aldabra atoll survive the flood? It makes no sense. They certainly needed to know about the coming flood quite a lot earlier than anybody else, because with their speed to reach the tops of mountains, or the Ark takes a lot of time. In any case they are not very good climbers, so mountains do not seem like a viable option not all of these islands even have mountains, nor is it very likely they ended up in their natural habitat after taking refuge in the ark either.

If a god saw it fit to destroy the saurian beasts, why were the crocodiles saved? They are water creatures so it is natural to assume they did not even need to reach dry land to live, but why and how were all the saurian seabeasts destroyed? And why and how were the numerous types of fish and seashells we have fossils of destroyed? There are literally thousands and thousands of different species of trilobite fossils alone and they are all seabed animals. What made all of them extinct? They are to be found in the many sedimentations claimed to be the pre-flood era by the creationists, but why are the more simple forms of fish fossils in the deeper sedimentation than those of more advanced form? Did a god decide to destroy some form of barbarian imitation of life by a devil, or were these simple forms of fish only the prototypes of fish god desided to inhabit the seas with? There is nothing about this in the Bible, is there? Fish for certainty as well as the saurian seacreatures, would have survived the flood, so what destroyed all of them?

This is all just speculating from common sense. If one is not a paleontologist, one is forced to either think they have the best information about the subject, or that the Bible knows better. If one has made the leap of faith that the Bible is different from all the other holy scriptures and myths in the world, one might come to the conclusion, that the Bible has to be true in every sense. However, disbelieving what the paleontologists say about their own art is a completely new leap of faith. It contains the thought that a group of highly educated professionals are either lying, or somehow totally mistaken, and that we laymen in their field can tell better if they are right or wrong about their entire field of expertise. This is the equivalent of me telling a doctor that there is nothing wrong with my health as I do not feel bad, if the doctor has made a diagnosis that says I am terminally ill. Now, a doctor may be wrong, but are all the doctors wrong, if they come to the same conclusion? 

Creationism has even some supporters with scientific degrees from universities. That does not however make their claims scientific. Science is made with many presuppositions. One of those might be, that there is in fact a supreme creator and even that the Bible is his holy connection to humanity. A scientist might even suppose that the Bible is infallible in the description of the creation of the Earth and life, but as to what conclusions he draws,  it is not science at all, if the researcher will not accept results that  might prove the presuppositions false. This goes for the theory of evolution just as well as it works for the Bible. The difference seems to be, that the scientists who presuppose the theory of evolution to be true in general terms, are aware of the paradigm of science to be the integrity to truth, while those (a very small minority indeed)  that presuppose the Bible to be true, only work to prove it so. In any kind of research, be it in the field of science, or for example criminology, the objective truth is only achieved by accepting the evidence of the research, not by presupposing, that god did it, or that the butler did it.