Creationism vs. Evolution: The Battle Rages On

Sir David Attenborough has revealed that he receives hate mail from viewers for failing to credit God in his documentaries. In an interview with this week's Radio Times about his latest documentary, on Charles Darwin and natural selection, the broadcaster said: "They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance."

Telling the magazine that he was asked why he did not give "credit" to God, Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

Attenborough went further in his opposition to creationism, saying it was "terrible" when it was taught alongside evolution as an alternative perspective. "It's like saying that two and two equals four, but if you wish to believe it, it could also be five ... Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066."

[From The Guardian, via BoingBoing]


No matter how uneducated or uninterested, everybody who leans toward evolution always has one trusty zinger in their arsenal when confronted by argumentative creationists. And that is, "what about the dinosaurs?" The dinosaur thing always seemed to have them stuttering and changing the subject. It's simple, it's obvious, you don't need to know a bunch of facts about science or the bible. Just mention dinosaurs and you pretty much know you can't be argued with, outside the old "put in the earth to test us" line that I bet even christians know is a cop-out.

Imagine my surprise when I found an explanation that will very possibly render the opposition stunned and unable to continue the conversation, thereby giving the creationist a win by default. Whoever thought it up is a genius. Brace yourself, this might shock you to your core and make you question all the beliefs you've held to be true all these years. Ready?

They aren't million year old dinosaurs. They're thousand year old dragons.

It's pretty obvious when you think about it. This is how creationism could ultimately win over evolutionism. Which article are you more likely to read: "Scientists say: 'Dragons are a myth'" or "Creationists say: 'Dragons are real'"?

Creation scientists have to really go out of their way to convince everyone that their ideas are not only absolutely 100% true, but also somewhat feasible. Meanwhile, sciencey scientists are all like, "Blah blah, evidence, blah blah experimental data suggests, blah blah logical conclusions, blah bleh blah". Their theories are inherently feasible, so it's no fun to listen to them prattle on. Also, we as human people enjoy the feeling of being convinced by a somewhat feasible argument, rather than being told uninteresting facts by boring scientists about stuff that doesn't really matter to us.

If a scientist came up to me today and said dinosaurs lived a million years ago, I'd say, "Yeah. So?" If a scientist came up to me today and said dinosaurs lived a million years ago and were actually dragons, I'd be like, "Dragons? Awesome!" Which is why when I read an article today by a creationist that says dinosaurs lived only a thousand years ago and were actually dragons, I found myself saying, "Dragons? Awesome!" The difference of opinion regarding the age of fossils wasn't even relevant at that point.

Scientists can explain to me all day long how gazelles evolved from this or that and I'll agree that they're probably correct, yawn and be on my way, quickly forgetting the conversation. But if they drop in a, "oh, and a million years ago they were magical unicorns", the next thing you know I'm telling all my friends about how gazelles used to be magical unicorns. That's power. Creationists seem to understand this. It doesn't matter if it's not exactly 100% true. It's semantics. Just change the names from boring meaningless latin to something awesome. If science decides to say that one of the transitional forms of prehistoric gazelle is called 'magical unicorn', then it's true. True and kickass. And it would totally explain how our ancestors thought up legends about unicorns without requiring any further evidence.

From now on, let's say we're descendents of wood elves and mountain dwarves. That sounds infinitely cooler than homo erectus or australopithicus. Come on, science. Get the stick out of your ass.