The central – inescapable – failure behind “Young Earth” Creationism:

Any attempt to rescue the “Genesis” narrative from the status of overrated folktale is disastrous:

First: Any attempt at “young Earth” creationism NECESSARILY requires DAMNING THE EVIDENCE AGAINST IT.    (The “Yahweh faked the fossil record to ‘test our faith’ gimmick.)

But, here’s the interesting part:

Any attempt to “defend” the Genesis narrative as “literally true” presents a whole series of — rather disheartening — problems, itself:

let me take a step back from this, and consider something rather mundane: making toast.

Making toast is a process.  Any given process can be understood (at least in part) as a series of steps (“means”).  Further, any specific process implicitly presumes some goal (“end”) — at least in relation to the specific “means” leading up to it.

For example: the process of making toast involves (at least) the following steps:

  1. Grow grain
  2. Harvest grain
  3. Grind grain into flour
  4. Use flour to make dough
  5. Turn dough into bread
  6. Bake bread
  7. Slice bread
  8. Procure toaster (or other “toasting”-device)
  9. Insert bread-slice into toaster
  10. Push button
  11. Remove toast from toaster (or other “toasting” device.)
  12. apply utter to toast (optional?)
  13. Eat toast

Now, notice something:

  1. Each of the steps mentioned can be treated as a ‘mere means” — but only with respect to step #15 – the “end” (“Eat toast”)
  2. Each of those steps is itself most likely a “mere means” to a multitude of other ‘ends” — most of which are utterly unrelated to step #15, itself.

For example: most likely, some other portion of the flour mentioned in step #3 is also going to serve as a “mere means” to other baking-related “ends” (for example: cupcakes, donuts, etc.)

Along the same lines: it is exceedingly unlikely (to the point of absurdity) that you procured the toaster mentioned in step #8, MERELY for the specific purpose of making the specific batch of toast mentioned in step #13.  If nothing else, you most likely have made/will make OTHER batches of toast/pop-tarts, etc.

Now, here’s the thing:

The least obvious thing about the whole process of making toast mentioned above is: it involves a MYRIAD OF ‘STEPS”, all of which are equally required to reach #13.   Moreover, the steps MUST take place in a specific sequence.  EVERY step is (to some degree) ontologically dependent on the preceding step:

You can’t toast the bread, unless you have bread, and some sort of toasting-device.  You won’t have the bread, if the flour was never ground in the first place.  You won’t be able to grind the flour, if you never harvested the grain.  You won’t be able to harvest grain that DIDN’T GROW — etc.

Now, contrast the above sequence with what (say), “Q”, from “Star Trek: the Next Generation” would do:

  1. Q decides (for whatever reason/no reason at all) “I want some toast!”
  2. *POOF*
  3. Q now has toast

Now, you might think that the above-mentioned ability to (seemingly) “poof” toast into existence indicates that an entity such as Q did not engage in any specific “means”, or necessary  sequence of steps.

But, here’s the thing: At bare minimum, there are at least 3 stages to EVEN Q’s process — all of which are equally necessary:

Q had to “want” toast — and to engage in some sort of “process” (no matter how seemingly magical or “supernatural” or whatever you want to call it), which resulted in the state of “Q-without-toast” becoming “Q-with-toast”.

The weird thing is: the mere fact that “Q+toast” DIFFERS FROM “Q-toast” neccesarily indicates that Q “Himself” is NOT “changeless”.

Even the most mundane (or seemingly “Omnipotent”) change from “State A” to “State B”  necessarily implies the following:

  1. A difference between “State A” and “State B”
  2. Some sort of “evaluative” relationship between “State A” and “State B”.  (For example: Q is — at least subjectively — “better off” with the toast, than without it.  Otherwise, there would be no purpose in having “generated” the toast, in the first place.

(Other than sheer, unmitigated WHIM, that is.)

Now, think about this:

“Young Earth” idiots resort to all manner of brain-destroying idiocy in an attempt to “defend” the notion that Yahweh engaged in the specific sequence of “steps” mentioned in the Genesis narrative — both SEQUENTIALLY, and OVER A VERY SPECIFIC TIME-SPAN (6 24-hour “days”).

In other words: Yahweh engaged in specific MEANS, in a particular sequence, over a specific time-frame — in pursuit of a specific goal.

Quite simply, ANY of the above would be enough to disprove the notion of Yahweh as “omnipotent”.  In the aggregate, they disprove “Omnipotence” — and “changelessness” at least 3 times over.

  1. Was Yahweh constrained as to the sequence of steps which “He” had to enact?  If “yes”, then Yahweh is constrained by necessary “laws”?  if “no”, then why would “He” pretend otherwise?
  2. Further (assuming that Yahweh is in some way “goal-directed”): To the extent that State-A (“Yahweh-Cosmos”) is worse than “Yahweh+Cosmos”, it FOLLOWS that State-B represents an improvement in Yahweh’s “situation”.

In other words: “Yahweh BEFORE” differs from “Yahweh After” in (roughly) the same way that “Me before eating toast” differs from “Me, after I eat toast.”

NOTHING “changeless” or “immutable” about either example.

3.  Last (but by no means least): why exactly would “creation” have SPANNED ANY INTERVAL, WHATSOEVER (let alone the “6, 24-hour days” Young-Earth imbeciles insist upon?)

Why not 15 seconds?  Why would the steps occur in ANY specific sequence, spanning ANY duration, whatsoever?

The only even halfway “credible” answer, of course, is the only answer “believers” can ever provide: the inscrutable, miraculous, magical and Mysterious  cop-out known as “God’s WILL”.

Quite frankly, if Yahweh gained any benefit whatsoever from “creating” an entire cosmos of entities — for ANY reason whatsoever, then it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS that Yahweh was — in some way — lacking.  Any “lack” (even something subjective and amusingly petty like “Yahweh was ‘lonely’, and wanted a ‘relationship’ with ‘Creatures’ who would ego-stroke Him eternally” — bespeaks IMPERFECTION.

In other words: If “Yahweh” HAD TO engage in a specific “steps” leading to any kind of “goal” which (even subjectively) improved “his” situation — “He” is neither “immutable” or “Perfect” — EVEN BY “His” own estimate.







Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s