In his article yesterday, Brian agrees with the most ridiculous Christians in order to denounce them. This is all too familiar, he used the same polemic tactic when denouncing Ayn Rand.
In the first place, Darwin’s theory needs extensive modification: the actual mechanism of change isn’t confirmed by paleontological findings: one quarter-horse, three-quarters giraffe, then two-thirds giraffe, then half-giraffe, leading up to modern giraffes. There seems to be sudden bursts of extinctions and sudden appearances of new creatures, which is inconsistent with the Darwinian account of progressive change. It would make more sense to call the Theory revolution than evolution.
Second, the origin of the universe appears to have been a sudden event (a ‘Big Bang’). The Genesis account of the creation of the universe is as good an illustration as any available to us. Compared with what other theories were in circulation in 2,000 BC it’s remarkable. What evidence does anyone have that Big Bang was something other than a deliberate act? I know I can’t prove the Christians wrong about the creation of the universe. Brian apparently thinks that because humans weren’t made on the sixth day, therefore God didn’t create the universe. He may be right, but the assertion is not logically valid. That means that a conclusion that CAN be true if the premises are false is logically invalid.
We could use In the following logically valid reasoning:
Premise 1: Either God created the universe as described literally in the book of Genesis or Darwinian evolution is true.
Premise 2: Darwinian evolution is true.
Conclusion: Therefore, God didn’t create the universe as described literally in the book of Genesis or Negative that God and Creation are true.
But what the argument has not demonstrated is that Darwin and God are exclusive:
The conclusion – Negative that God and Creation are true – is not valid from the premises listed above.
If Darwinian theory is true then both premises are true. But if God actually started Big Bang (for example by sneezing) and Darwinian theory merely describes what happened next, then the conclusion is false. Nothing in the premises excludes this possibility, therefore the argument is logically invalid.
Third, making any point about Christianity in relation to the nationalized Church of England is as relevant as using British Leyland in 1970 as a case example of capitalism. This doesn’t stop some people from doing so: mostly anarchists who think the USSR was an advanced capitalist society.
I look forward to Brian’s dismissal of logic as the devil’s script. 
