A recurring argument I'm seeing fairly often from theists lately is that everyone can just agree to disagree, because "you have your standards of proof and I have mine." Ostensibly, what this argument attempts to accomplish is to take all the strength out of what are widely considered the standards of proof----or truth measurement---in science. In doing so, the theist attempts to dodge the responsibility of reconciling his position with scientific standards of truth. Through this relativistic argument, his "science-based" opponent is using one method of measuring truth, while he is simply using another. And, hey, if that's the case, we're just arguing over inches versus centimeters, right? I'm right by my standards, and you're right by your standards, so everyone is happy.

Well, not really.

This argument ultimately undercuts itself. Claiming to have your own standards of proof is not helpful, because if we adopt relativism in our standards of proof, then ultimately everyone is right, relatively speaking. But also, everyone is wrong, relatively speaking. So playing the relativism card in an attempt to shoot down scientific proof is to turn the gun right around and shoot yourself in the face. It only leaves us with a bunch of meaninglessness.

Since coming to this site, I've frequently made posts about the intellectually futile practice of explaining theological concepts through metaphor. So many times have I found myself talking about the uselessness of metaphors in discussions about god and spirits that I thought maybe I should join the ranks of the Rational Responders who write blogs to avoid having to retype what they've already said a thousand times.

So listen. Attempting to explain or understand god through metaphors is an exercise in delusion with some clumsy smoke and mirrors involved. Don't do it. Don't let it be done to you.

A metaphor used properly does not relay anything true, nor does it provide a definition, nor an explanation. It is a rhetorical device that draws a purely superficial relationship between two understood items so that one or both can be admired in a novel way. It is a play on perception.

For example, the following is a metaphor used properly:

"The sun was a bauble in a tree."

When we hear this expression, we immediately understand that the sun is not actually a bauble, nor is the bauble a sun. It takes almost zero thinking for us to get that far. Since the speaker obviously did not mean this literally, we must take the next logical step and ask ourselves: "What did he mean by that?"

Through our knowledge of the sun and of baubles, we can ultimately infer a superficial relationship that exists between the sun and a bauble, namely the way they look in relationship to a tree when viewed a certain way.

The purpose of this entry, as the title states, is to introduce you to two contemporary articles that explain in fairly simple language how evolution is a fact and how creationism is the lie.

When I first decided to read more about evolution, these articles were tremendously helpful to me, and they really motivated me to learn more. I have decided to link them for anyone who is still uncertain about evolution and is looking for some literature that won't give them a reading headache.

1) 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (John Rennie)

This first article is from Scientific American (2002) and delivers exactly what its title suggests. You are given 15 of the most commonly offered arguments from creationists (and/or Intelligent Design advocates) and then swift, concise rebuttals. If you're straddling the fence about evolution, you may want to start here.