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.