Creationism and its Critics PT3

Alrighty folks, I am back with another post; Part 3 of my Creationism and its Critics series! This next section deals with Creationist motives and ethics. Obviously by the title, the motives and reasoning of creationists is being questioned. While I have my opinions on the matter just by reading the title of the section, I will reserve my comments for the actual Q&A. And once again, hopefully there are actual criticisms here.

Question: "Why do creationists make it appear that scientists are questioning evolution when they are really only questioning current beliefs about evolutionary mechanisms?"
Answer: This is an entirely unwarranted charge, usually made when creationists cite the writings of Stephen Gould or other modern evolutionary critics of neo-Darwinism. If those who make the charge would read or listen to the full context of what the creationists say, they would surely realize that no such misrepresentation was made or intended. Creationist scientists are all well aware that Gould and other modern advocates of "saltatory" evolution (as opposed to "gradualistic" evolution) are still evolutionists.
This very fact has been made a key point of creationist writings and lectures. The fact is that the so-called "punctuationists" are now using exactly the same arguments against the neo-Darwinians that creationists have been using for years (e.g., the gaps in the fossil record), and these "revolutionary evolutionists" resent having this recognized. The latter still maintain their faith in evolution despite the complete lack of evidence for it. It does seem strange to creationists that evolutionists can be so confident about the "fact" of evolution and still remain so completely uncertain as to its mechanism. Evolution is claimed to be "scientific," and still going on; so it seems like it should be observable and measurable. Yet, after 150 years of intense study of biological variations, evolutionists are still completely in the dark about the supposed mechanism of evolution. This fact surely is cause for beginning to doubt the validity of the very concept of evolution.

 Here I find a great criticism. Constantly, you do hear creationists state that more and more people are questioning evolution, the issue though, is that when making this claim, creationists state this as valid proof that evolution is not a sound theory. This is what the author is attempting to defend against.

Regardless of what the full context is, it is still in an ardent position to refute the overall theory of evolution. While not in my immediate possession (and therefore could just be taken as opinion), there are a great many speaker presentations that I've watched which have made these claims, and mostly on the seeming basis that the theory is falling apart. Or, the statement is used to reassure followers of creationists that they have nothing to fear, and Gods love will shine through all the evil that is science. Ok, that is a bit of a biased answer, but in short, the statement seems to be made often to hype those that follow creationism.

The next bit is wrong. Just wrong. The ideas of punctuated equilibrium have no commonalities with creationist arguments; the ideas are to explain the seemingly quick burst in a wide range of species of organisms, and gives at least an explanation as to why we find such a grand range of species in certain geological strata ( Cambrian mostly). Creationists intend to refute the claims made by scientists supporting evolution, and gaps in the fossil record are explained by them as "evolution does not work, because there are missing fossils". And what we see in the last few sentences is exactly what the question was criticizing; a bold statement in saying that there is no evidence of evolution, and an irresponsible one at that.

Question: "Who profits from the sale of creationist books?"
Answer: The largest publisher of creationist literature is Creation-Life Publishers, of San Diego. However, CLP is in the bush leagues of publishing compared to the giants who publish high school and college evolutionist textbooks. Not only those publishers, but also their authors, have a vested interest in maintaining the high profits and royalties which they receive from the lucrative textbook markets, especially in the elementary and secondary schools. This is surely one key reason for their emotional opposition to the introduction of creationist books into the schools. The inordinate fear of the Creation Research Society biology textbook has already been mentioned.
The outcries of indignation that have been widely voiced at the very thought of creationist publishers or writers profiting from creationist books need to be evaluated in light of the personal interests of those who are resisting it. As a matter of fact, the Creation-Life Publishing Co. was only organized in 1974 in order to provide a needed outlet for creationist books, since the established publishers were all afraid they would be a financial liability, and since the Institute for Creation Research did not have adequate resources to publish its own books. A small group of concerned individuals (including a few ICR staff members) provided the necessary investment capital to get CLP started, knowing it was a serious risk, but feeling that the cause of creationism warranted it. Furthermore, the company has had a substantial net loss for its first twelve years, and no stockholder has yet received any monetary dividends or interest on his investment. Of course, if and when the publishing of creationist books ever does begin to be profitable? we can be sure that the big publishing companies will then also begin publishing creationist books, and, with their resources, would probably soon take over this market. In the meantime the record following facts should be noted as to the relation between CLP and ICR:

1. Although some ICR staff members are CLP shareholders, the large majority of shares are held by people not connected with ICR.

1. CLP publishes many books produced by ICR, but also publishes many other books.

1. A significant number of ICR books are published by other publishers than CLP.

1. There is no organizational connection at all between the two, only an informal cooperation.

   No criticism here, as per usual. I however have one; how can a group trust a company that has had substantial net loss? Ah, but it doesnt end there, the claim is that creationists dont profit from book sales. Well books arent the only the means of monetary gain, creationist groups still release a great and many other forms of media to get there message to the masses. As well, theres many speaker presentations, conventions, and so on and so forth, all brings in some form of money. Is this unethical? maybe not, but only to the extent that its business, like anyone else would do, they need to turn a profit. What is unethical is the content of these media forms, especially when book titles make bold claims against scientific theory to deter the masses from widely accepted, and sound ideas.

Question: "Isn't it unethical for creationists, in order to support their arguments, to quote evolutionists out of context?"
Answer: The often-repeated charge that creationists deliberately use partial quotes or out-of-context quotes from evolutionists is, at best, an attempt to confuse the issue. Creationists do, indeed, frequently quote from the evolutionary literature, finding that the data and interpretations used by evolutionists often provide very effective arguments for creation. With only rare exceptions, however, creationists always are meticulously careful to quote accurately and in context. Evolutionists have apparently searched creationist writings looking for such exceptions and, out of the hundreds or thousands of quotes which have been used, have been able to find only a handful which they have been able to interpret as misleading. Even these, if carefully studied, in full light of their own contexts, will be found to be quite fair and accurate in their representation of the situation under discussion. On the other hand, evolutionists frequently quote creationist writings badly out of context. The most disconcerting practice of this sort, one that could hardly be anything but deliberate, is to quote a creationist exposition of a Biblical passage, in a book or article dealing with Biblical creationism, and then to criticize this as an example of the scientific creationism which creationists propose for the public schools. Another frequent example is that of citing creationist expositions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and charging them with ignoring the "open system" question, when their writings are specifically dealing in context with that very question. In any case, evolutionists much more frequently and more flagrantly quote creationists out of context than creationists do evolutionists.

I wish this answer would give examples, I really would. This isnt a charge, its true that creationists continually quote out of context in aims to validate their arguments. And to turn right around and say that "evolutionsists" constantly quote creationists out of context is what is confusing the issue. I think I have looked into this issue before, and while its not tons and tons of examples (I dont have tons and tons of posts yet), it is still a great example of the out of context quotes.

The rest of this section just deals with whether creationists profit themselves from the promotion f their materials. While I see no real issue with this necessarily, just in which the way creations instigate and initiate debate to promote and enforce their beliefs on others. What I really want to get into is finally, part 4.

Creation and its Critics PT2

Hello one and all!

Time to continue on with my second part to Creationism and its critics. This next section deals with the qualifications of creationists, which I hope this section will yield some actual critiques of the overall movement.

Question: "Why should such a small minority as the creationists expect to impose their beliefs on others?"
Answer: Creationists are not a small minority. A nationwide poll commissioned by the Associated Press and NBC News late in 1981 showed that over 86% of the people favored having creationism taught in the schools.
Nevertheless, creationists only request fair treatment, not favored treatment, in the schools. The attitude of the liberal humanistic establishments in science and education, in trying to maintain an exclusive indoctrination in evolutionary humanism, seems incredibly intolerant and arrogant in a free country. In 1982, a Gallup poll, as widely reported through the New York Times service (e.g., San Diego Union, August 30, 1982, p. A12), found that at least 44% of the national population believed not only in creation, but in recent creation!

Ah, another question rather than critique.... but, the data being used here should be brought into question. Not because of its validity, but rather the idea that the poll mentioned was from 1981/82. There have been more recent polls taken, so why not use stats from those? I dont believe this is in any attempts to lie to the readers of the article, but rather to try and hype the idea that the population wants creationism taught in schools. The number given may be some sort of collective, as in, 86% believe in a creator, whether or not evolution was a factor in the development of the species we see today. This poll also doesnt account for every single individual in the country (I'm assuming the USA), so this may not fully be an accurate number. Whats most unfortunate about this information provided, is that there is no references, you could however do a simple internet search, and possibly find the info, but a little more information should have been given by the author.

Question: "America's news media are apparently almost completely opposed to the creation movement; does not this fact refute the claim that a significant part of the population favors creation!"
Answer: Unfortunately, there is firm evidence that the leaders of the news media are completely out of touch with the opinions of the American people, even though they are supposed to be "opinion makers." For example, columnist Pat Buchanan, through the Chicago Tribune New York News syndicate on December 30, 1981, cited a recent article by Lichter and Rothman in Public Opinion magazine, which had reported on detailed interviews with the 240 leading editors, reporters, columnists, TV anchormen, producers, correspondents, and film editors people judged to be the leaders of the media in deciding what news to report and how to report it. The answers to all the questions demonstrated the extremely strong liberal bias of this group (as opposed to the much more conservative leanings of the people they supposedly represent). This abnormally left-wing bias was evident in all areas of thought sociological, scientific and political. Only 8% of them regularly attend either church or synagogue. and over half have no religious affiliation whatever. With this kind of profile, it would be surprising to find even the smallest semblance of sympathy for creationism in the media. The creation movement and arguments are, as a result, almost always misrepresented and distorted, often viciously, in newspaper and magazine articles and in radio and television coverage. 

Hmm... I think the meaning of secularization needs to be brought into this Q&A. But, I also wonder if creationists have an idea of what secularization actually means, apparent by all the creationist literature I've read, I get the idea that secularization means a lack in god, or atheism... which is puzzling because secularization has nothing to do with belief, and more to do with tolerance. Anyway, the media is a bit of a difficult area to talk about in this context. The media intends to draw viewership, and this is done by showing outrageous displays to the mass public; if creationism gets its spotlight in the media, its simply due to the fact that some right wing creationist has outrageous claims, i.e. headline making. Whether or not news media is for or against creationism is irrelevant.

Question: "But why are all real scientists evolutionists?"
Answer: All real scientists are not evolutionists! There are thousands of bona fide scientists today who have become creationists, all of whom have postgraduate degrees, who are pursuing careers in science and who have records and credentials quite comparable to those of any other segment in the scientific professions. Although most scientists may still be evolutionists—especially those who control the scientific societies and journals—the creationist minority is respectable and growing. There are creationist Ph.D.'s in every branch of pure and applied science today geology, physics, engineering, medicine, and all the rest it is obvious now that a man or woman can be well trained and experienced in any discipline of science and can understand the factual data of that science within the framework of the Creation Model. In fact, acceptance of creation is known to be growing most rapidly today among people with scientific and technological training. This is all the more significant in light of the fact that practically all of these scientists were indoctrinated in evolutionism throughout their training. To become or remain creationists, they have had to study and think themselves through the evidences and arguments for both models, all on their own initiative, and usually against the opposition and ridicule of the majority of their scientific and educational colleagues. Most of them, like the author of this booklet, were themselves evolutionists throughout their college years and beyond, becoming creationists only as a result of later personal critical study and reevaluation.

Ah, finally! An actual question within the realm of credentials.... this still however does not equate to a criticism. No, not all 'real' scientists are "evolutionists", but why exactly does that matter?  the point of science is to study phenomena that wouldnt be readily explained. There will always be a natural explanation to certain aspects, and thats the point of science. Creationists have trended to the various critiques brought forth, and the idea of major credentials has sparked an uprising in YEC organizations to promote credentials throughout all of their works. Credentials arent everything though, many times you will see a prominent creationist speaking as authority on a topic far related from their expertise. Of course, there are those that speak on topics related to their educational training, but very much so gloss over details, or provide any critical analysis of the ideas they are against.

While on the topic of trends, another prominent feature of creationist proponents seems to deal with the idea of "I once was lost, but now am found" or "was blind, but now I see", which relates to the overly used claim that many highly respected creationists were once evolutionists. Personally, this seems more of a hype tactic rather than a reality; all these claims are never backed by any insight into what their life was like beforehand, and what truly "drove" them to the light. Its apparently also necessary to paint a portrait of higher education in the light of indoctrination. I believe I've spoken on this issue in a previous post, but again I shall comment. Post secondary education has no intention of indoctrination, and if a student with religious ideals in the first place does not want to "buy into" the idea that life developed unaided by a higher force, then why are they taking advanced classes in the areas of biology? If they believed that the world was flooded almost 4500 years ago, why learn about the processes of geology? Of course, I'm not stating that these individuals shouldn't be allowed into these classrooms, I actually encourage them to! Learn all you can, because if any of these individuals go on to become future prominent figures in the creationist movement, they should at least have a well grounded understanding of the processes to explain to the masses they so want to influence.

Question: "Then why don't creationists publish in the standard scientific journals?"
Answer: Creationists do publish in the standard scientific journals, in their own respective scientific disciplines, and their publications' records compare well with any other comparable group. For example, the scientists who have served on the staff of the Institute for Creation Research have published at least 150 research papers and 10 books in their own scientific fields in standard scientific journals or through secular book publishers addition to hundreds of creationist articles and at least 50 books on creationism and related subjects. Whenever these articles or books have creationist implications, however, they must be "masked" in order to get them published in secular outlets. So far, at least, all frankly creationist articles or books are simply rejected out of hand by such publishers. For example, when the high school biology textbook produced by the scientists of the Creation Research Society was ready for publication in 1969, the 15 leading high school textbook publishers were contacted about possibly publishing the book. It was a comprehensive and well organized book, written by a fully-qualified team of Ph.D. biologists and other scientists, and should have been financially profitable for any publisher. Nevertheless, not one of these publishers would even so much as look at the manuscript! They claimed their other books would be boycotted if they were to publish a creationist textbook, so it was necessary for the Society to have it published by a Christian book company. The book has gone through two editions, and has been widely used in private schools.

If this question were a critique, it should be more along the lines of "what ideas are creationists bringing forth that don't support ideas of scientific thought, and why dont these established ideas work scientifically?". The point is, if these creation scientists have any actual criticisms of scientific research then of course they would be published in the various scientific journals. The Journal for Creation for example, is stated to  be peer reviewed. But what is peer reviewed, and by whom? Seemingly, the technical articles published are reviewed by other creationists, so of course this would make it through to the publishing stages of this journal. No real critical analysis is actually done, as there is still various rebuttals to these articles ( one example can be found HERE, a religious website so as to not come off with a clear bias). My point here, is that if these technical papers are in fact peer reviewed, they most likely would not be published.

The other issue here is the publication of textbooks for high school students, and the idea that they must contain clear markings that they are from creationist sources. Again, secularization comes into play here, because if these were used in classrooms without the understanding of the source material, this would be considered indoctrination. Now when creationists claim indoctrination, they point to the idea that evolution is whole heatedly taught and embraced by the public school system, in a possible religious fashion. This idealization is harmful to promote, as it does not help students if it continues to be a constant debate. Students of course can have their own opinions and ideas on the subject, but if a student has the undertones of YECs and therefore, the mindset to ignore studied and verified materials, how will they understand how processes work later on in life when they attempt to become a biologist, a physisict, or a doctor? Biology seems to be the bulk of where creationist attacks lead to, I'm guessing due to opinions on life origins, and evolution. Without the biological factor of evolution ( the idea that things change over time), how are we to explain the diversity of life forms? (and this is regardless of whether organisms started out a "created kinds" or not, because we still see diversification today).

Question: "But isn't it true that all the really important scientists are evolutionists?"
Answer: It is extremely difficult today for creationists to get Ph.D. degrees or to secure and retain faculty positions in the major universities.
Similarly the major scientific societies and periodicals are controlled by committed evolutionists. Students in science programs are exposed only to evolution in their classes and textbooks and often their advancement after graduation depends in part on conformity to the system. Under such circumstances it is remarkable that thousands of scientists have become creationists anyhow. One organization alone, the Creation Research Society, has had well over 700 members who have postgraduate degrees. Even though the modern scientists whose names are most familiar to the public are evolutionists (Sagan, Gould, Leakey, etc.) there are nevertheless many creation scientists today who hold equally important and demanding positions in scientific research and development. In fact most working scientists are apparently so deeply involved in their own projects that they don't even think very much about the creation-evolution question. They have not taken any public stand either as evolutionists or creationists and probably have not studied the evidence enough to decide. Many are (like the writer was for a number of years) evolutionists simply by default and conformity rather than conviction. Of even greater significance than the fact that there are thousands of scientists who have become creationists in modern times, however, is the fact that most of the greatest scientists of the past founding fathers of modern science creationists and, for that matter, even Bible-believing Christians. One could go down the list of the names of the great men who founded the various disciplines of modern science like Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Pasteur, Maxwell, Kelvin and scores of others of like calibre he would find a very large percentage of them to have been men who believed the Bible to be the Word of God and the God of the Bible to have created all things in the beginning. Somehow these beliefs didn't deter them from understanding science! For brief biographical testimonies of more than 60 of these great creationist scientists of the past, see the book, Men of Science-Men of God (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982), 128 pp.

Ah, another claim that creationists are also well established scientists. This again has no relevancy to anything, and is still in no way a critique on creationism. There also seems to be a shameless plug in here to promote a creationist publication, and I fail to see what good it would do either way to look into it. The idea that "all important scientists are evolutionists" is also irreverent to anything, as its stated in the answer (and previous answers, as well as from the website I hyperlinked to) that many scientists do have religious backgrounds and are devout to their faith (whether they are YECs or not).

This second section has proven nothing in terms of critiquing the ideas of creationism, and has been more so in favor of defending the idea that creationists aren't dumb. But this childish banter does nothing to verify creationism, nor does it do anything to disprove it; its simply whining to get attention. The next section will hopefully give better results in terms of critiques of the subject, so until next time!

Creationism and its critics PT1

I've been trying to think of what to blog about next, and had a few ideas (one of which I still need to publish, more on that in the coming weeks) but nothing that truly interested me to the extent of intense blog writing. But, low and behold, I have found something to comment on for today! This post is based on an article from the ICR (institute for creation research, for those not in the know), and the article itself is titled Creation and its Critics:Answers to Common Questions and Criticisms on the Creation Movement (the title itself should hyperlink to the article). The overall idea here is to go through various questions, and apparent critiques thrown at creationist groups by the anti-creation movement, and provide and answer to each one. The whole article is divided in to four major sections, so I've decided that I shall do 4 separate posts for this article.

But lets dive right in; The introduction to the article is quite blunt. Anti-creationist movements have been on the rise, and publishing on the topic from the anti-creationist movement has yielded unruly, and overly biased results. Misrepresentation seems to be what the ICR author is getting at, and maybe to a degree (a very tiny one) there might be some merit to it. I suppose in my opinion, actual criticism of the creationist movement has not, nor ever will be, motivated in dishonestly presenting opinions on the matter. If the only real  viewpoint from the side of creation, is that books from authors like Richard Dawkins, or the late Christopher Hitchens, are their only source of where the criticisms are coming from, then I hardly see any reason for the ICR to have one of its employees write on the topic of creationist criticism... there is still a vast amount of opinions and ideas to still look at. 

The first section of the article deals with creation and religion, I'm guessing in short, should creationism be attributed to religion. I had gone into the article thinking that I would find real criticisms of what "creation science" has brought to the scientific table; instead I found mostly general questions from unknown questioners.

Question: "Since creationism is based on the Genesis creation story, why should it be included in public education?"
Answer: Scientific creationism is not based on Genesis or any other religious teaching. One can present the scientific evidences for creation (and against evolution) without referring at all to the Bible or to any type of religion.
Entire books have been written on scientific creationism without a single quotation from the Bible and without basing any argument on Biblical authority or doctrine. Such arguments deal with genetics, paleontology, geology, thermodynamics, and other sciences with theology or religion. Indeed, the scientific case for creation is based on our knowledge of DNA, mutations, fossils, and other scientific terms and concepts which do not even appear in the Bible. Furthermore, creationist scientists many who were formerly evolutionists made a thorough study of the scientific evidences related to origins and are firmly convinced (not by religious faith but by the scientific evidences) that the scientific data explicitly support the Creation Model and contradict the Evolution Model.

This is the first question and answer proposed in the article, and right off the bat I have issue with this first bit. The question asks why should creationism be taught in public education if its based on the Genesis account included in the Hebrew Bible. Valid question, but none the less, not a criticism of creationism. The answer is even more perplexing, in that, apparently creation science has nothing to do with the bible. The argument is nonsensical, because the basis for for creationism is the "account" written in the book of Genesis. Flood geology, biological factors descended from Adam and Eve,  the explanation of the fossil record, all of these areas are based on the stories told in genesis, so how is creationism not based on the genesis creation account? I would be highly interested to know which books the author is speaking about that make no mention of biblical authority, or quotations. The other area is the claim that all scientific data to date supports the creation model, when really, that isn't how science works. While science notes a phenomena and works to explain it, creation takes a pre-existing conclusion and uses previous data to attempt to fit it in with their beliefs. Reading through various articles and commentaries shows no unusual phenomena with attempts to explain using "scientific creationism".

Question: "But isn't this so-called scientific creationism simply a backdoor method of getting Biblical creationism introduced?"
Answer: We could just as easily ask whether teaching evolution is a backdoor method of introducing atheism. Scientific creationism and Biblical creationism can, in fact, be taught quite independently of each other. We ourselves are opposed to the teaching of Biblical creationism in public schools. Teachers of biblical creationism should have a good knowledge of the Bible and a firm commitment to its authority, and these qualifications cannot be imposed on public school teachers. Biblical creationism, as well as other sectarian views of creation, should be taught in churches (as well as synagogues and mosques) but only scientific creationism in public schools. Both can well be taught in religious schools.

Another simplistic commentary, and the answer is unsurprising, childish even. Its more along the lines of a childish backlash, by attempting to turn the blame on some other area rather than showing reasonable defense. Teaching evolution in biology classrooms (which is usually where it would be taught) has no intentions of teaching people to not believe in god, more so the mechanisms of how life arises and why it is the way we see it. The only correct thing about this answer, is the idea that Biblical creationism is a separate topic from "scientific creationism", in the sense that one teaches about the specifics of the Bible, while the other attempts to explain how those specifics happened. This also shows that creationism attempts to explain instances that have been seeded into knowledge before hand (ie they already have a conclusion).

Question: "What is the difference between scientific creationism and Biblical creationism?"
Answer: The first is based solely on scientific evidence, from such sciences as those listed above; the second is based on Biblical teachings. The Genesis record includes the account of the six days of creation, the names of the first man and woman, the record of God's curse on the earth because of human sin, the story of Noah's ark, and other such events which could never be determined scientifically. On the other hand, scientific creationism deals with such physical entities as fossils, whereas the Bible never refers to fossils at all. It is quite possible for scientific creationism to be discussed and evaluated without any reference whatever to Biblical creationism.

Essentially, I've already covered this area. However, there is still the aspect that creation science wants to prove something, rather than explaining.

Question: "Why is it that only Protestant fundamentalists are concerned about creation?"
Answer: The doctrine of creation is of concern to people of a wide variety of religious views. Evolution-ism is the basic premise of many religions, including Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Taoism, Liberal Protestantism, Modernist Catholicism, Reform Judaism, and others, not to mention humanism and atheism; so these all would naturally tend to oppose creationism. In view of these and other religious implications, it is absurd to claim that evolution is strictly scientific. On the other hand, creationism is also basic in a number of religions only all the denominations of conservative Protestantism, but also traditional Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism, as well as conservative Islam and other monotheistic religions. It is much broader in scope and importance than as a particular doctrine of Biblical fundamentalists. Indeed, it is offensive and discriminatory to these other creationists to hear constantly that creation is only of concern to certain Protestant conservatives.

Again, another non-critique. But the funny is the defense to claim Creationism (and only specifically that sect of Christianity  as the one true religion, while throwing other religions and viewpoints under the bus, strict ideologies based on the idea that things change (evolution). Now discrimination comes into play; Protestant Fundamentalists adhere the creation account as fact, and that in only 6000 years accounts for the vast range of life we see on earth today. There are still the vast amounts of religious individuals that believe creation happened, but not to the extent that the creationist movement has adhered to.

Question: "But isn't the very fact that creationism requires a Creator proof that it is religious, rather than scientific?"
Answer: It must be remembered that there are only two basic models of origins, evolution and creation. Either all things have developed by continuing naturalistic processes, or they have not; there is no other alternative. Each model is essentially a complete world view, a philosophy of life and meaning, of origins and destiny. Neither can be either confirmed or falsified by the scientific method, since neither can be tested or observed experimentally, and therefore either one must be accepted on faith! Nevertheless, each is also a scientific model, since each seeks to explain within its framework all the real data of science and history. Creationism is at least as non-religious as evolutionism, and creationists are sure that the Creation Model fits the facts of true science better than the Evolution Model. It is true that creationism is a theistic model, but it is also true that evolutionism is an atheistic model (since it purports to explain everything without a creator). If theism is a religious faith, then so is atheism, since these are two fully comparable systems, each the opposite of the other.

More non-critiques... see a pattern here yet? The answer has a slight bit of strategy here though; by dividing the ideas of creationism, and the numerous amounts of information attributed to evolution (again, that things change) there is an idea that we are placing things into good verses evil, the ravens verses the 49ers, God verses the devil... I'm really unsure why this is necessary, the scientific community surely doesn't play this game. Clear opposition to creationism might do this, but still, this doesn't happen with those that don't find merit to the ideas of creation science. This answer also seems to show a clear misunderstanding of what evolution tends to show, which in a nutshell, is CHANGE. Change over time more precisely, and we can see this, whether or not you want to accept it. Change in the broad sense happens all around us, naturally I wouldn't attribute this to evolution, but even in technology you find new innovations that change. Within the spectrum of biological evolution, you can see change in a variety of different ways. Heredity of traits contributes to change, isolation from the initial population contributes to change, populations that die out contributes to change, and all the while you Paleontologists find fossils in many different layers that show CHANGE OVER TIME, so why is it that this isnt considered to be testable? The other thing is the claim that neither of the two "worldviews" can be tested scientifically, or falsified, so why is creation science still considered science, if it too like evolution cant be tested?

Question: "Why can't evolution be regarded as the method of creation, instead of having two competing models of origins?"
Answer: It is important to define terms, especially on this issue. The belief that God used evolution to make man is properly called theistic evolution, not creation. Evolution purports to explain the origin of things by natural processes, creation by supernatural processes; and it is semantic confusion to try to equate the two. Theistic evolution says there is a God behind the natural processes which cause evolution; atheistic evolution says there is not. Both forms of evolution assume the same framework of evolutionary history and the same evolutionary mechanisms, so there is no scientific way to discriminate between the two, as there is between creationism and evolutionism. Theistic evolution must be judged on the basis of theological criteria, not scientific. The creation and evolution models. on the other hand, can be compared and evaluated on strictly scientific criteria, as is done, for example, in the book mentioned previously, What is Creation Science? Creationists maintain that evolution is a poor scientific model of origins, strictly on the basis of scientific criteria.

Like stated in this answer, it is important to define terms, so lets go ahead and do so. Theism itself holds the belief that there is a god (one or many could also be the case), while atheism holds the idea that there is no god, and therefore supports the theory of evolution due to natural processes, which in turn, evolution does not hold to the idea that there is or isnt a god. Theistic evolution could be taken in a more broad sense, in that it could show the evolution of theism over time (again the idea of change, and you'll probably see this over and over again), while atheistic evolution could very well show the same thing (change of atheism over time). But again, contradictory to what was stated earlier (the ideas that creationism is scientific, but that its un-testable scientifically) now both creationism and evolution can be tested scientifically... which one is it?

Question: "How can creationists expect to have their doctrines taught in public schools when they believe that evolution was invented by the devil and is responsible for communism, racism and many other evils in the world?"
Answer: At most, such beliefs are no more offensive than the frequent evolutionist charge that creationists are ignorant fanatics, and that creationism and Biblical Christianity are responsible for religious wars, witch hunts, and all sorts of moral bigotry. The latter charges are actually frequently made in public institutions, whereas evolutionists are merely fearful that the former charges might be made if they ever gave creationists an even break.
As a matter of fact, creationists have repeatedly stressed that any religious, social and moral implications of evolution and/or creation should not be discussed in public institutions at all. Only the scientific aspects of the two models should be discussed, leaving all religious and moral implications for discussion at home, church or elsewhere as appropriate.
As far as the actual beliefs of creationists are concerned, this should be completely irrelevant in a land of religious freedom. The role of the devil in propagating the evolutionary concept is a legitimate topic of study for those who believe in Biblical authority, since the Bible does teach the reality of a great personal being who is the ultimate source of all rebellion against the authority of God in His creation. Those who do not believe the Bible should not be concerned one way or the other, since they do not believe there is a devil anyway.
Evolutionists are completely unwarranted in taking any personal offense to this teaching of the Bible. Creationists do not regard them as "agents of the devil," as some have complained, but only as unknowing victims of the one who has "deceived the whole world" (Revelation 12:9). If, indeed, creationism is true and scientific, and if evolutionism is false and contrary to true science (and this is the question at issue) then it is also reasonable for creationists to seek a causal explanation for the world's pervasive and age-long belief in evolution. The Bible-believing Christian (and one should remember that our country and legal system were established in the first place by Bible-believing creationist Christians) thus necessarily must be committed to some such ultimate explanation.
However, this in no way implies any personal charge against any individual evolutionist. Furthermore, these are religious matters, not scientific, and creationists believe they should all be excluded from public instruction anyhow. Creationists do not want their beliefs caricatured by non-Christian teachers any more than evolutionists want them promulgated by Christian teachers. They should not be discussed at all in public schools.
By the same token, creationists do not suggest that any modern evolutionist is a fascist, communist, racist, imperialist or any other type of social activist. To believe that fascism, communism, etc., are based on an evolutionary philosophy, however, is only to believe what the founders and leaders of these systems have always themselves insisted. If present-day evolutionists object to this fact, they should direct their complaints to the spokesmen for these systems, not to the creationists. Once again, however, creationists do not propose that these or any other social, moral or political implications of either evolution or creation should be included in public education anyway; so the objection is irrelevant.

Now this was a long one. Again more question than critique, but possibly borderline. The answer here this time shows somewhat a bit of annoyance; in the creationist view, many immoral and horrific events have transpired due to the ideas of evolution. In the opposite corner, there are those that attribute religions to past atrocities throughout written history. While many of the creationist claims are quite debatable, there is still the accounts that attribute to fundamentalist religious beliefs as reason for specific past events (the crusades, witch hunts, ect). But in reality there is no point in directing blame to either, and more should be directed to human nature. Medieval times would have shown a fear in the unexplainable (witch hunts) ruling the world would have been another greed filled aspect of nations and their leaders (crusades), as well, power can lead to instability ( Hitler, Stalin, or Mao) and the results may be devastating. The author also touches on this, but does not practice what he preaches.

Question: "Why should creationists insist on teaching creationism in public schools when they do not teach evolutionism in their own churches and religious schools?"
Answer: This widely circulated criticism reveals a serious misunderstanding of the nature of public schools and other tax-supported institutions. These are supported by both groups of citizens and evolutionists therefore both basic scientific models of origins should be taught in them, as objectively as possible. If Christians want to have only creation taught, that they should establish private schools for that purpose. By the same token, if secularists or others want to have only evolution taught, they should establish private humanistic schools for that purpose. For evolutionists to insist that their evolutionary religion should be subsidized by the taxes of creationists is both arrogant and unconstitutional. The two-model approaching both evolution and creation on a strictly scientific and objective basis the only approach in the public schools which is consistent with the constitution, with civil rights, religious neutralism, scientific objectivity, educational effectiveness, academic freedom, and general fairness.

More questioning, no major critiques yet. And apparently this is a widely circulated criticism, but doesnt seem to be a criticism what so ever. The idea is simple, if people want to learn about creationism then fund your own schools, this can also be said about teaching evolution in science class (biology specifically). Publicly funded schools intend to teach science so students have a basis in each field, and while creation can be up for debate (lets face it, there will always be opposing ideas) then it can be done so in an open fashion. However, an attempt to indoctrinate by teaching staff is unacceptable, and on either side. this is really where the issue lies, the reason being that it infringes on the rights and freedoms of the students. So why is evolution taught? more so the fact that different areas of biology encompass it; it explains variety by going deeper and shows how it happens. Creationist or not, shouldn't there still be basic foundations laid out in biology?

Question: "Since creationism includes the creation of 'apparent age,' doesn't this imply the supposed Creator has deceived us?"
Answer: The concepts of creation does, indeed, involve the creation of "apparent age" better, the creation of "functioning completeness." By its very essence, true creation involves processes no longer in operation.
The products of these creative processes include the whole functioning universe. One may try to calculate an "apparent age" of any particular system in this functioning cosmos by use of some present (non-creative) process involved in that system, but at best this can only be as good as the assumption of the "initial conditions" which are used in the calculation (see the discussion of this subject in, for example, What is Creation Science?, pp. 239-253). The Creation Model quite reasonably implies that these initial conditions were produced in the system by the processes of creation and were of whatever nature and magnitude they needed to be for that system thenceforth to function optimally in the completed world as created. This concept is inherent in the very nature of creation. To say that there can be no creation of "functioning completeness" (or "apparent age," if you prefer) is the same as saying there can be no creation; this begs the whole question, of course, and is equivalent to defining away every option except atheism.

Well doesnt that still apply to your idea of theistic evolution? This last critique and answer seems to have nothing to do with religion, and just opens up more questions shuch as "what then, is TURE creationism? And why are YEC right in their view as opposed to countless others that adhere to creation but still believed evolution happened?

This concludes the first section of the article, and I will continue my critique of it in the next post. So until then, later ya'll!