Brad+Mitchell+Entry+5

I completely agree with Kenneth R. Miller. Creationists, if they want to be taken at all seriously, need to stop using the argument that there are things in nature that are completely unexplainable. Every time they make a claim like that to prove their point they end up proving the point of the opposition. I mean, when the priest said “The Bible tells us that even Solomon in all his glory was never arrayed as one of these. And do you know what? Not a single person in the world can tell us what makes a flower bloom. All those scientists in their laboratories, the ones who can split the atom and build jet planes and televisions, well, not one of them can tell you how a plant makes flowers,” he never even fathomed that scientists probably already knew why flowers bloom. When people try to tell people like the priest that they are wrong, they basically, for all intents and purposes, stick their fingers in their ears and hum loudly.

If creationists are going to keep arguing their point they need to update their arguments to something a bit more logical. Just pointing to bible as their sole shred of evidence just is not good enough. Even the new age creationists, who use slightly more logical arguments, like the eyeball being too complex, or the flagellum of a bacterium not being able to function if you take out one of many pieces can and have been proven wrong time and time again. “They claim that the existence of life, the appearance of new species, and, most especially, the origins of mankind have not and cannot be explained by evolution or any other natural process. By denying the self-sufficiency of nature, they look for God (or at least a "designer") in the deficiencies of science. The trouble is that science, given enough time, generally explains even the most baffling things. As a matter of strategy, creationists would be well-advised to avoid telling scientists what they will never be able to figure out. History is against them. In a general way, we really do understand how nature works.” Creationists, most of which are very religious, simply do not understand this. Those that do just don’t except it. Why is it that people insist on refuting science based on a belief system created before we had even a basic understanding of how the world worked? Old religions were basically there just to explain the unexplainable. A thousand years ago lightning may have been considered an act of god. We now know this simply is not true. Lightning is caused by electricity build up in clouds caused by friction between particles discharging to ground. Spectacular as it is to watch, lightning only seems mystical to the uneducated observer. People just have to drop their skepticisms when there is plenty of evidence to prove what they doubt.