|
I'm sure there are some unique aspects to this particular book, but if you ever decide to look at three or four, they tend to all argue the same basic things in similar ways.
A lot of the game is about distracting the scientifically underinformed reader into emotional responses. Beauty, sublimity, mystery, and lack of explicability are nice things, but in Creationist books they are there to draw attention away from the important questions of what, in context, really is understood and what importance any particular fact has to related ones (crucial ones are often left unmentioned). That's why these books tend to have lots of glossy pictures, tables, quoting of supposed authorities, and attempts to make the reader feel cognitively at dissonance with the evidence and style of the other side.
The usual game to attacking Evolution is to argue probabilities to people who can't possibly know/guess them. The "refutation" of the Theory of Evolution is usually put in an erroneous and a priori fallacious formulation of absolute probabilities- if one starts with a lump of graphite and asks what it takes to turn it into a mouse in some instantaneous way, the absolute probability is of course zero. Evolution doesn't work this way, of course- it acts using the element of time, via a series of individually small molecular changes contingent on the state just previously attained and in some fashion 'selected' relative to others. If you have 100 coins lying there in a state of 'heads', one coin, and a couple of throws, the question of 'How likely is it that you get 101 coins at "heads"?' is answered by: in a few seconds. And 102 heads, given the next coin, a few after that, and so on. (Suddenly 101 coins you are told got tossed in the air and all being shown to you as "heads" doesn't seem quite so impressive, does it?)
The evolutionary likelihood of something can in theory be estimated using a series of conditional probablities- certainly not by absolute (one-time) probabilities. (Unfortunately, no one actually has all the knowledge needed and quantified to actually compute such a thing.) But that is the standard logical fallacy of most Intelligent Design arguments. Biological evolution proceeds by small steps of finite probability. The attack on it in this way ignores the role of time and falsely presumes chemical behavior to be mechanistic rather than stochastic.
Most of the remaining "arguments" for ID are overt or subtle pieces and variations of the classical Proofs For The Existence Of God by Aquinas and/or the Ontological Proof of Anselm and their many minor variants by others, and mistaken claims about the amount or significance of scientific knowledge we have about things in Nature. Those are different in each Creationist text.
Kant demolished the philosophically serious aspects of the Proofs completely on their own terms about 300 years ago in (the very unreadable) 'Critique of Pure Reason'. So they are pretty easy and fun little chestnuts for philosophy mavens. For people invested in Creationism, the ugly problem about the Proofs is this: even if any of them is true, none actually shows or proves that the God of e.g. the King James Version is the God that is shown to exist. So to be a serious Creationist of the Christian subvariety (there are others), you therefore have to show that the sequence of Creation attested to Genesis is correct, because otherwise Wotan or Odin or Tyr or Jupiter or Brahma is just as plausible (and embarrassing) an explanation to other people.
The "proofs" taken up into the Church canon at one time all ultimately derive from the arguments for the existence and power of the Nature Gods of pre-Christian Europe and maybe the Near East. The Greeks wrote some of them down, the upper class Romans famously didn't actually believe in any of them except perhaps Fortune.
The saddest part of the whole game is that the Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament) isn't interested in a Creator/Nature God except for some need to have some explanation for How Physical Things Just Happen To Be The Way They Happen To Be. It glosses over Oh All That Stuff rapidly, albeit twice (at variance with each other- how embarrassing the disagreement in order to Creationists!), impatiently hops to the famous assertion about Man being "made in the image of God", and rushes headlong into asserting a God who is psychologically serious and passionately moralistic, interested in the content of peoples' lives, and very confidently lets the Laws of Nature run on autopilot.
The Creationists' God seems not to have an autopilot for his Machine and seems to spend an awful lot of time making sure the planets revolve around the Earth properly, gets annoyingly fussy about how people fool around with their genitalia, upset with deformed creatures, and in general seems to be in need of a lot of helping out. There's always a need for some Demon to keep screwing with the works. The Creationists' God really looks rather like a hybrid of the old pre-Christian gods and goddesses of the Creationists' ethnic group, made (generally) nicer in personality, if you dwelve into such things.
|