exploring the creationist thought process

How to argue like a creationist in one easy, dishonest, and willfully ignorant step.

One of the criticisms I often get from creationists is that my evolution-driven worldview makes it impossible for me to understand their mindset and ultimately, their arguments. Now of course, we're not talking about any of the actual science involved since trying to prove the supernatural with the scientific method requires us to just go with their word without requesting any actual evidence.

Instead, our focus is the actual structure of a basic creationist argument and how it can be applied to pretty much anything around us with equally bizarre results. So here's an idea. Why don't we follow in the footsteps of a certain Biblical character who decided to sneak a peek at a supposedly forbidden world and bite into the creationist apple for a little education in obfuscation?

With our new creationist mindset, I'd like to propose to you that airplanes are really built using a complex alien anti-gravity device which endows objects with the ability to fly. No, wait, hear me out. Have you ever seen entire planes built from scratch? Oh sure there are pictures of planes in various stages of construction but why don't we have a moment by moment breakdown of the process? Obviously, the gaps is when alien technology was being applied to make the whole thing work. If it wasn't, planes couldn't fly. I mean really, how do you expect a huge piece of metal to suddenly take flight?

Last time anyone checked, metal is heavier than air and can't just float in the sky. Yet we're supposed to believe that it can because we're told about something called lift, which is somehow making tons of metal and fuel soar above the clouds. This "lift" is just a cop out by lazy engineers and scientists who want to deny the existence of aliens and their wisdom so they can pretend they're smarter than an ancient otherworldly civilization and steal its achievements for themselves.

These bizarre ideas of human built, heavier than air flying machines propelled along by thrust are just a fancy myth concocted to keep us away from the truth and the evidence for alien magic and its influence in our lives. I don't care what the engineering and aerospace cabal says, they simply don't have a leg to stand on and their theories about lift have been crumbling for the last century, refuted by modern science and hotly disputed by many people. Listen folks, the aliens gave us the gift of flight and many other wonderful devices we enjoy on a daily basis.

We fail to recognize their contributions at our own risk and for those who able to see the reality of what's going on around us can feel the alien influence at every turn. I mean how can you look at an aircraft's arc into the wild blue yonder and not feel the alien tentacles wrapping around it, carrying it and its passengers upwards and onwards? How can you look at your computers or television sets and ignore the clear signature of design and capabilities far beyond the human mind? I don't know how any of these things work so just take a minute to think how much conceit and arrogance for scientists and engineers to think they can.

And end scene. So what have we learned about building a creationist argument? We begin with a declaration which states our goals in the discussion. Next, we try to appeal to the ignorance of others. Nobody can know and see everything, especially something highly technical, therefore, we have to pick something very few have seen or worked with firsthand. Then, we'll declare that the gaps are explained by the very thing we said we're going to defend by stating that clearly, it's responsible.

Afterwards, we try to cut off a legitimate objection with a categorical declaration that it's nonsense and once again trying to appeal to ignorance. With the groundwork laid for a rant about the importance of our beliefs and how anyone who thinks they're smarter than us is just a conceited denialist with too high of an opinion of him or herself, we can then begin proselytizing by appealing to emotion. By the time we're done, we built a creationist style argument about anything we wanted.

But note, there's no real proof for our position, just rhetoric which equates ignorance with evidence and this is exactly why any and all critiques must be addressed by taking issue with their tone and finer semantics, or by accusing anyone who doubts the argument of being arrogant or lying about the scientific evidence to deny the case for what we believe, even if we're trying to refute something from really basic middle school chemistry or biology.

And if we need to lie and say that something lining museums across the world doesn't exist, than this is what has to be done to justify our belief as valid. After all, creationists can't be wrong. They just can't. They're trying to set people on the right path and the last thing they want to hear is evidence that they're wrong or that their argument is actually a modified appeal to ignorance with a whole lot of proofs by assertion.