With the apparent rise of the popularity of creationism I feel like I should do my part to help dispel the myths they perpetuate, so in a series of posts I Alexandre Rodriguez will tackle the main “arguments” that they place forward.
So I present to you the 1st of 7 posts;
One of the key arguments put forward by creationists is that the geographical landscape in which we live in directly relates, and is evidence of, biblical events as defined in scripture.
The Grand Canyon
In this argument they usually refer to one of two geological formations. The first is that of the grand canyon. One of Americas most striking and awe inspiring formations it is unsurprising that it would draw attention as lynch pin in creationist arguments.
They typically argue that the depths of the canyon could only be carved out by the extreme amounts of water that the world was supposedly savaged with during the flood Noah built the ark to escape from.
However aside from the obvious issue that they are working backwards from a conclusion, it is clearly not the case that the grand canyon was caused by a flood. If the whole world was consumed by intense rain that could cause this type of erosion in a day, the grand canyon would be one of many examples of this effect.
In reality the grand canyon was carved out over millions of years by fluvial (water based) activity in the area as a result of being part of the water table.
People have spent their whole lives analysing the cause of the grand canyon and understanding the manor of its formation, so for me to claim to be an expert after a summary look at the evidence would be insulting. But needless to say every expert who has spent actual time examining this geological formation agrees, that it categorically was not caused by “magic”. But dont take my word for it look into the evidence.
The second key formation that creationists point to is the Giant's causeway in Ireland. A with most creationist arguments about geography they have found a complex looking geological formation and instead of attempting to understand it they simply point to it and declare it is proof of a god. They then attempt to craft an argument to fit their predetermined facts. The museum on site even acknowledges the claims of the creationist much to the national trusts dismay .Though it is probably worth noting that their claims don’t really extend beyond “magic” and that God did it. Whilst the grand canyons argument is equally as wrong at least they attempted to cloak it in science no matter how bad and unsubstantiated the science is.