Creationism, or the set of beliefs claiming that the universe, Earth, and all of its inhabitants were created by a deity less than 10,000 years ago (the “young earth” variety), is scientifically untenable. We have no evidence to suggest that the Earth is so young, or that organisms have persisted in their present form since time’s beginning.
It is interesting then, to take the creationist position and compare it to the scientific one, to see just how divergent the conclusions are. Granted, the creationist position does not accept the timeline proposed by geology, biology, and archaeology, substituting a more “pop into existence” approach. But what if the Earth were only 6,000 years old? How would it’s history scale down?
As a thought experiment, here is a timescale of Earth’s history, based on the 6,000 year time frame of creationism:
Based on this scale:
- Modern humans evolved just in time to vote for Barack Obama’s first term.
- The last dinosaur died a mere 85 years ago, spoiling the premier of Alfred Hitchcock’s first film.
- Earth’s most extreme mass extinction event, where up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct, occurred during the Ottoman Empire’s siege of Vienna.
- As fish evolved and radiated in the Denovian period, King Henry the VIII was wrapping up his reign in the English Monarchy.
- The Italian renaissance was interrupted by the appearance of hard-bodied organisms during the Cambrian Explosion.
Of course, if we try to fit what we know to be scientifically accurate within what is proposed by creationism (which denies this accuracy), the conclusion is conceptually bizarre. By starting with two contradictory premises we will get hardly useful conclusions. Though the above scale does not depict the tenets of creationism, it does show how important it is to understand the lengths of time we are dealing with in biology and other related sciences. It is understandable to me that it would be hard to accept the idea that the diversity of life sprung up from an ancient common ancestor if 80 human lifetimes were all I had to work with. Grasping geologic time, i.e., billions of years, makes evolution’s slow plod of adaptation sound much more feasible to those unfamiliar with it.
Hardcore creationists do not accept evolution (by definition), and disagree with modern geologic dating. Therefore I doubt that this thought experiment will impact them. But recognizing this temporal mismatch is important because even casual, “old Earth” creationists often do not take their position to its logical conclusions. Creationism’s focus is mainly on refuting evolutionary theory, but it too conflicts with many historical, geological, and archeological findings.
In science we look for evidence that helps generate hypotheses, which in turn form the foundation of theories. Every theory we have coaxed out of nature so far indicates that the canyons we see, the diversity of life we observe, require orders of magnitude more time than is allowed in a “young Earth” worldview. Not only this, but these same theories make a “pop into existence” view, the main tenet of creationism, highly implausible at the most and unnecessary at the least.
Simply put, we don’t need the “pop into existence” hypothesis to explain anything we have yet observed. Creationism clumsily uses a sledgehammer to fit a square peg in a round hole, leaving a dented mess of history.
[Scale via I Love Charts]
Science-Based Life 
May I have permission to reblog this? Not right away though, but sometime soon.
Sure thing.
Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.
Not sure about compressing the timeline… I work with computer systems. We can freeze a running system, sometimes for months, and unfreeze it and it has no idea this has happened. We also clone them. With a bit of work, we can create a new system, start it and it will _think_ it has been running for years (and has the log files to prove it).
But this is like a supernatural entity, creating our reality at, say, 10 past nine this morning. We don’t know that, and we have no way of knowing, as our reality contains clues that indicate the exact contrary: that the earth has been around for billions of years, complete with artificial fossil records and in our brains artificial memories of the 2012 London Olympics and what we had for breakfast (which never happened of course – the earth was created this later this morning). There are even pre-created discussions about creationism versus evolution, with, oddly enough, ALL the evidence stacked TOTALLY in the evolutionists’ favor. :-)
So either someone or something with a bizarre sense of humor has gone to an enormous amount of work, or what we see is simply what happened.
The only reality we have, the only one that we can know, is OUR reality. But – and this is the important point – EITHER WAY gives us the SAME reality!
I’m missing something with the graphic. Are you condensing the established length of era as a percentage of the 6000 years? i.e., the <3000 years of the Archaen time period represents nearly 50% of the total existence of the planet?
For this graphic to make an impact, either on Creationists or Evolutionists, it needs some common frame of reference. Also, the big reveal with Creationists is that 6000 years ago, magic occurred. All those eras and epochs mean absolutely nothing to them. In fact, the average Creationist isn't familiar with anything before the Permian except the Cambrian (as much has been made of the Cambrian Explosion as geologic evidence of the Great Flood).
Anyway, this is really a geologic timescale for scientists to poke fun at creationists, always amusing, but this time, I think the joke is a bit obscure.
I appears to be that way, yes (I do not have access to the method they used).
I think the point of the graphic is to show just how short of a time 6000 years is, and what can happen in that time, in comparison to geologic time.
He’s right; the timescale is utterly ridiculous even for a creationist. I don’t think they propose that the Archaean period began roughly 4000BC, so why make a graphic of that, if not only to demean at a straw man?
“Creationism, or the set of beliefs claiming that the universe, Earth, and all of its inhabitants were created by a deity less than 10,000 years ago (the “young Earth” variety), is scientifically untenable.”
Creationism is of two principal varieties, Young Earth Creationism, which is, usually, it seems, of the Bible literalist type and of very short time span and a broader meaning of the term which is not restricted by bible considerations. You do not always separate them very well in your discourses on the subject.
“It is interesting then, to take the creationist position and compare it to the scientific one, to see just how divergent the conclusions are.”
Specifically which creationist position; Biblical time span or more generally accepted time span?
The “thought experiment”, even if it actually qualifies for that term, is rather trivial and, unless someone is committed to short term creationism, unnecessary, while if they are so committed it will make no difference, other than for main stream science types to preen themselves in their supposed superiority.
Even if you do compare the creationist position to the scientific one, or any other position to the scientific one, so what? Science is an extremely useful process but it is based on assumptions which are not proven and cannot be proven. Therefore, the scientific position is limited by those starting points, assumptions, let alone what happens thereafter.
Creation involves design and scientists are not exactly noted for expertise in design, or many other things for that matter, which is why it is we engineers who endeavour to fulfil the “wish list” of scientists, as well as the rest of humanity, rather than scientists themselves. In doing so we do many things which are “scientifically untenable” as you put it, albeit in a different context. However, scientists are oblivious of how unscientific we engineers are, at times, because they do not understand engineering, which is also why they struggle to understand the universe, along with many related and unrelated matters.
As well as being an engineer, I have other attributes, abilities, which make me well aware of much beyond that which science can explain. To a large extent that is because much of which I am aware is beyond the limitations imposed on science by its founding assumptions.
From that vantage point I am aware that there is indeed creation as well as being aware of the nature of the Creator.
I have no problems whatever with evolution, at least in its broad concept. It is entirely correct; so are the time scales but time is not what science, or at least simplistic science, supposes. I also have no problems with creationism as I know that is correct as well, in its fundamental understanding rather than the short term ad/or literal Biblical text interpretation approach. In that I am in accord with Neil Donald Walsch, among others. Unfortunately, as it is put in Neil’s books, there are those who must be right and insist that others are wrong. Seeing a pointless debate from a rather different perspective to the participants, protagonists might be more accurate, is wryly amusing.
“In science we look for evidence that helps generate hypotheses, which in turn form the foundation of theories. Every theory we have coaxed out of nature so far indicates that the canyons we see, the diversity of life we observe, require orders of magnitude more time than is allowed in a “young Earth” worldview. Not only this, but these same theories make a “pop into existence” view, the main tenet of creationism, highly implausible at the most and unnecessary at the least.”
“Simply put, we don’t need the “pop into existence” hypothesis to explain anything we have yet observed. Creationism clumsily uses a sledgehammer to fit a square peg in a round hole, leaving a dented mess of history.”
In science you might well look for evidence but mainstream scientists, or those of materialistic, atheistic persuasion, tend to ignore evidence which does not fit, such as on implausibility, or other grounds. You bring up the matter of plausibility yourself, in relation to the “pop into existence” matter.
Firstly, matters of plausibility depend on knowledge and understanding; that which are implausible to some people are perfectly plausible to others. A certain professor carried out experiments on a non-mainstream therapy in his only particular way ignoring considerations he thought fell into the implausible, from his point of view, level of understanding, area and “proved” that it was no better than placebo, not that he understands placebo either. However, he obtained “the right results” for himself and his acolytes; otherwise known as confirmation bias. In contrast, those who do understand that subject, even the non-scientists among them, were immediately well aware that he had not ruled out the variable he thought he had. The experiment was, therefore between very poor and nonsense, and proved nothing, other than the professor is a poor scientist and does not understand that which he professes.
On the other hand, in stark contrast to what you wrote in relation to the creation of life, as you understand life, there actually being more to life than that and you do need a “pop into existence” explanation for the creation of the universe; the “Big Bang” theory is just that, as well as it popping into existence out of nothing rather than out of something, compared with the biological life scenario – life does not need biology but that is another story.
Mainstream scientists and their hangers-on also “use a sledgehammer” to ensure that everything conforms to mainstream thinking, mainly, it appears, so they can “lord it” over “lesser mortals” with their superior knowledge and understanding, both being, in Reality, illusory (the capitalisation is deliberate); they, almost, always have to be right.
Are there really that many hardcore creationists in the world to justify writing such a paper that makes them look stupid? Shouldn’t we/you all of us just let them be and treat them as a small minority of people? Minorities after all make the world a wonderfully interesting place, no matter how displaced their ideas.
We can justifiably let ideas like creationism be because they are actively trying to interfere with the education of our children.
Apart from you not differentiating between “types” of creationist, do those of your persuasion not actively try to interfere with the education of their children?
It is very common for those of atheistic, materialistic, scientistic, self-styled skeptic way of life to interfere with the way others wish to lead their lives. The approach of such people has long seemed to be a double standard one; endeavouring to prevent non-mainstream healing approaches to be available to people, opposing the involvement of the Law in science in the libel sense, for example, but endeavouring to use the law against non-mainstream people, endeavouring to prevent certain subjects being taught in universities because they are “unscientific” (in terms of their narrow definition of science, of course) when many other non-scientific subjects are taught and a university being a place of higher learning, not specifically scientific higher learning, etc. etc.
This is not merely a clash of worldviews. Science is not imposing anything on anyone. However, if you want to be objective, science is the best tool that we have. Non-mainstream creationist views should not be taught in schools because they are religious ideas which should be separate in a secular education and they have no evidence behind them. Would I “interfere with the way others wish to lead their lives” if I advocated against teaching that Zeus creates lightning to children? Furthermore, alternative medicine practices aren’t being held down by science, there is simply no good evidence to justify their acceptance.
I am teaching in a school where half the science teachers believe in Creationism! Shocked!!!
This is a mean B.S. joke that is hurtful towrds creationists. and who ever drew this vulgar chart did not now creationists do not beleive in evolution. i myself was once an eveolutionist but have prounly coverted to creationist and assure you this chart does not please me and i know it is nothing but a mean joke
“A Geologic Timescale For Creationists Science-Based Life”
genuinely got me simply hooked on your blog! Iwill be returning a
lot more frequently. Many thanks -Abbie