I was just watching a show on the Christian channel about evolution. Actually, it wasn’t about evolution so much as it was against evolution. So it was all very skewed. The funniest part was they said they were going to be talking about an “outdated theory.” They meant evolution, of course, but were unaware of the obvious fact that their theory of creationism is much much more outdated.

Personally, I do see the points where the theory of evolution, as it stands, doesn’t account for certain things. But I don’t agree with the basic assumption of Creationists, which they clearly stated in the beginning of the show: either life evolved through random natural development (evolution, according to the way they’re defining it) or it was created by intelligent design. They made a point of saying that the two were mutually exclusive. They even went so far as to say that if you could prove one, the other is “automatically disproven.” Conversely, they said that if you could disprove one, then the other automatically had to be true.

That’s like me saying if I poop in a hat, then it must “logically” be a toilet. Okay, well maybe it’s not quite the same as that. But the whole line of reasoning is flawed. Nowhere does it say that both can’t be true. Or both can’t be false, or that both can’t have elements of truth and inaccuracy in them (which is what I think).

The other ridiculous rhetorical trick they immediately launched into was to declare that God is “impossible to disprove.” Whether or not you agree with that statement, they aren’t allowed to set up conditions, as though they were investigating something rationally, and then right away break those conditions.

The whole problem here is that people are trying to use religion as though it were a rational pursuit. And it’s just straight up not. And there’s nothing wrong with that at all. It serves its own important purposes. But it would help things out if we could stop confusing the two.