Well, Connecticut seems to have its fair share of creationist retards incapable of understanding how science works. Here they have such moronic statements as “Intelligent Design is an Intelligent View” and “Connecticut is a beautiful State, demonstrating God’s awesome ‘intelligent design.'” It should become obvious that no matter how beautiful we perceive something does not mean it was made by a supernatural deity. Indeed, if you have read the said holy text, it would seem the deity(ies) therein prefer war and destruction to beauty and elegance. Nevertheless, let’s tackle the basic premise that the Earth was “designed and made by God.” More below
“Designed by God”
Well, since this being is supposedly far more intelligent, omniscient, even, than us poor little lowly humans, one would expect a design by supposed deity to be at least up to human design standards. It would seem that the Earth is situated precisely where it needs to be within the “Goldilocks zone,” as I often hear it said, but how probable is it for the Earth to have formed here from an accretion disk?
Well, let’s look at where the inner planets are:
Mercury: .30-.46 AU
Venus: .72-.73 AU
Earth: .98-1.02 AU
Mars: 1.4-1.7 AU
Of the inner planets, there seems to be a fairly common distribution distance of .25-.4 AU on average. This can be interpreted one of two ways. Either some deity formed an accretion disk and had it coalesce at certain intervals or the planet formed naturally in a similar manner to the other planets with no need for supernatural intervention. The latter is the only one which provides an answer which is useful to us as it gives insight into the fundamental properties of planet formation. When a portion of mass is distributed thinly enough over a large enough accretion disk, the likelihood of a single, small, rocky planet to form in the “Goldilocks zone” rises substantially due to the gravity of forming planetoids not affecting the orbits of other planetoids. Let us then conclude that this deity is not required to form the planet.
Let us move on to the “beauty” of Connecticut. Am I supposed to believe that Connecticut is more beautiful than any other place on Earth? Am I supposed to concede that because somehow, being beautiful implies it was designed? Personally, I find some trees quite beautiful, and not just in the superficial “trees are beautiful” sense, but I find specific trees more beautiful than others even of the same species. No need for anything supernatural to have designed this specific tree to give me a sense of beauty and wonder of nature. This tree grew from a seed (in most cases) to a beautiful plant with arms branching in a certain sway with the wind indicating its long, tumultuous history. I’ll have to upload a picture of the tree I am specifically talking about at some time. It is plainly obvious that this tree is unique due to its windblown look and the fact that it is a black oak, which look majestic anyway. The environment shaped this specific organism, not an invisible hand.
Now for Mr. Grady S. MacCurtry. I refuse to call someone with a “doctor of divinity” degree a “doctor” for numerous reasons. Chief among them, how can someone be able to claim being “learned” (what the latin “doctus” means) in anything relating to religion is beyond me. According to his page, he does lectures such as the following:
The purpose of this ministry is to provide biblical and scientific seminars in churches and public forums, i.e. universities, radio and TV broadcasts, etc.; to provide a resource center for information distribution, education, consulting, missionary evangelism and discipleship concerning the truths of biblical foundations, especially Biblical Scientific Creationism; to be a part of the revitalization of classical Christian intellectual activity for the preservation, promotion and propagation of a Christian Biblical World View.
Secular presentations will also be made to promote intellectual honesty, circumspect views and critical thinking concerning the question of origins.
Am I the only one that finds irony in a creationist promoting intellectual honesty? How one can claim creationism or its close cousin, “Intelligent Design,” intellectually honest, is beyond me. Perfectly rational explanations for everything in the world and the universe can be made without invoking the supernatural. One can easily see that numerous examples of creationist claims of things being “too improbable to exist without the hand of God” are vacuous statements with no real basis for their statistical “improbability” since we only have one example of it happening due to a lack of exploring other possible celestial examples of planets similar to our own situated in similar relative locations to their parent stars. We have but a single example, and no statistical observations can be made with a SINGLE observation. If he truly wants to present critical thinking, I would gladly attend any seminar he puts on in Louisiana to demonstrate what “critical” is, if he wants “critical thinking” instead of “critical to everything but religion” as most creationists do.
Creationists seem to miss the facts of science and instead prefer to focus on their selected holy text and try to fit the evidence to the narrative, ignoring all evidence which doesn’t fit. This has lead to things such as creationist museums and Dover, PA. As a student of the world around me, learning all I can in this short life I have to perhaps aid humanity from ultimately destroying this beautiful (and completely natural) hunk of rock upon which we live along with all of our evolutionary relatives in this vast web of life. How one can think their God is so tiny as to be concerned about humans on this insignificant little speck of rock, one but many of the millions of species upon just it, is beyond me. Is your god so petty, so tiny, so vitriolic, as to be reduced to condone the wiping out of a city because some long dead city leader hundreds of years prior did something to the Israelites. I don’t quite gather how that’s even defensible. By the way, the city I was talking about was Amalek.