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!

Is Evolution Pseudoscience?

So what is a pseudoscience? A google search of the term along with 'definition' shows up many results. All of these results seem to point to the notion that a pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs believed to have a scientific basis to them. So while perusing through the CMI website today, I found an article asking this question about evolution (which can be found HERE).

The CMI author basis his claims on the in-depth definition of Pseudoscience from the Skeptics Dictionary ( Pseudoscience- The Skeptics Dictionary) and goes through 10 criteria to further his topic claim. The SD (the skeptics dictionary) uses creationism as its example of what traits a pseudoscience possesses, which may be a little unfair on their part, but has its merits in each of its points. This apparently outward attack is picked up in the CMI article, and retaliated upon, IMO, in a sort of childish school yard manner. So lets look at each of the criteria, and the CMI response one by one;

1. Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation.
In almost every debate about origins, the first argument given by the evolutionists is an appeal to authority. The National Academy of Sciences flatly asserts, ‘While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve.’² [our emphasis]
We are supposed to respect these scientists because science has proven so powerful. But the people who preach evolution didn’t discover gravity or pasteurization or semiconductors. They just call themselves by the same name, ‘scientist’.

I'm actually a little unsure and confused by what this answer is trying to get at. The SD criteria of pseudoscience is that it is based upon an authoritative text ( in creationism's case, Gods true word is in the bible, therefore its to be taken as truth), and the CMI authors answer claims that the scientific community basis its trust in evolutionary theory because "the scientists said so". Unfortunately for creationist, this claim can still be put down; its the job of the scientific community to verify claims made based on empirical evidence, within the scope of evolution, the various areas that support the theory base that support on physical evidence that is found (i.e. fossils). Of course, I can guess that any creationist reading this post would argue that no evidence has ever been found, but the evidence is why people base their trust in the theory of evolution, evidence. The second bit of the CMI answer is just flat out childish, I really have no comment on that.

2. Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe.The web site of the US Department of Energy admits that no one has observed evolution happen in nature or the laboratory, but explains, ‘As for the fact that we haven’t made evolving life in the laboratory yet, I think that you’re expecting too much of your species. Let’s say, as a first guess, that it took blind Nature a billion years to make evolving life on earth. … How much faster do you want us to go? Even if you give us an advantage of a factor of a MILLION in speed, it would still take us a thousand years to catch up … ’.
So it is totally unrealistic to expect to actually observe evolution, even under artificially accelerated conditions.
Richard Dawkins, Professor of Zoology, Oxford University, said, ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening.’ 

I think what needs to be defined in this case is the term evolution. I know for a fact that creationist organizations KNOW the meaning, yet continue to say that because it hasn't been observed as an organism is changing (meaning species to species) it simply does not happen. Again, doing a simple google search on the definition of biological evolution (which is what the specific case is) all points to the idea that organisms change over time, or through many generations through inheritance of genetic traits. So while we do not see populations physically changing all the time (due to the fact that we simply do not have the amount of time TO see a physical change), we do know that they do in fact change. Organisms (for example humans) may not necessarily change to different species, but in order for this sort of significant change to occur, different conditions would be needed for something new and significant to arise, as well as inheritance through many generations. So yes, it is totally unrealistic to expect to see a new species arise, especially in populations that do not grow at an exponential rate. BUT, organisms that do produce large population rates are and have been seen to produce various (different) populations, which has been, and continues to be done in controlled lab experiments. Again, the last bit of the answer is irrelevant to anything; the quote from Richard Dawkins only attempts to pin Dr. Dawkins in a vilified light, as in, a lying evolutionist.

3. Some can’t be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world.
The next is essentially the same:4. … [or] are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory.
Evolutionists are always ready with a story to explain any observed trait of a species. Why do some birds, like peacocks and birds of paradise, have beautiful and elaborate tails? Evolutionists explain, ‘If a peacock can … find food and evade predators while dragging around a bigger and more conspicuous tail than his rivals do’ this demonstrates that he is particularly strong and capable, and thus makes a better mate. So evolution selects females that prefer males with the most elaborate tails.
But the same article also says, ‘it’s hard to figure what possible advantage these eye-catching but burdensome appendages offer … in the grim business of survival.’ If peacocks had small, streamlined tails, evolutionist would surely be explaining that an efficient tail gives an advantage in the struggle for survival (in escaping from predators, for example).
Evolution is just as good at ‘predicting’ things that never happened as it is at predicting things that actually did happen. A theory that can explain anything, predicts nothing and proves nothing.

Hmm... I think what the CMI author is attempting here, is to say that the theory of evolution just explains anything without evidence or study. As well that its just shoehorned to fit with what physical evidence shows... I really think that is more so what creationists do. Lets take the story of Babel; in the city, an apparent tower was built to reach up to the heavens, but God sees this and comes down to confound the citizens, so that they spread across the earth. Archaeological evidence shows that ancient Mesopotamian populations built large structure called ziggurat's, and adherents of creationism attribute these  structures as definite proof of the tower in Babel. There is no evidence to suggest that this event happened at all, but the physical evidence of ziggurats somehow proves that this is a factual, historical event.

The comment on peacocks; the same thing applies to any species, the most attractive are usually the ones sought out by potential mates. The mating produces offspring, who inherit the traits of their parents, and so on and so forth, which continues the trait of the large and vibrant tails. Again this relates back to inheritance through populations, traits remain. It is simply ignorant to state that the theory predicts nothing and proves nothing, when all areas of evolutionary biology, as well as paleontology, have predicted specific outcomes due to what evolutionary theory would predict ( genetic inheritance, progressively more complex fossils the higher the strata).

5. Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them.Evolutionists are forced to admit that the fossil evidence for their theory is slim to non-existent. For example, almost all major groups of creatures appear in the fossil record with no evolutionary past. ‘Something quite bizarre happened at the end of the Precambrian Era. Rocks from that time show evidence of an astounding variety of multicelled and hard-shelled life forms that seemingly appeared all at once. Scientists have long pondered the causes of this sudden appearance of new life forms, known as the Cambrian explosion.’
So the evolutionists offer ad hoc hypotheses to explain the lack of evidence. One popular theory is ‘punctuated equilibrium’, which says that sometimes evolution happens so fast that there are too few ‘intermediate’ generations for any to have much chance of being fossilized.
We cannot see evolution happening today because it goes so slowly, and we cannot see evidence of it in the past because it happened too quickly! 

While fossilization is in fact a rare occurrence, there is still an astounding number found throughout the geological timescale (ie the strata graphic layers). First off, fossil evidence is not non-existent,  but the conditions of fossilization are rare, producing fossils only in rare instances. As well, Cambrian species that have fossil evidence are mainly those that where hard bodied or shelled, giving a more likely chance of fossilization  rather than the soft bodied species that have less of a chance to fossilize. Overall, the answer here by CMI is to say that because of the lack in evidence of evolution in cambrian species, and the slow gradual change in species in the present time, evolution doesn't happen. But the wealth of knowledge and evidence thus far still  says otherwise, and of course science still has work to do to find the answer, which is what science does, working to explain whats not fully known.

6. Some pseudoscientific theories rely on ancient myths and legends …Okay, one that doesn’t particularly describe evolution, although evolutionary notions can be traced back to ancient pagan Greek philosophers such as Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC).

 Nothing to defened with here? How shocking! And I'm being sincere here. I've looked into the Greek Philosopher Empedocles, and found nothing on the sort of evolutionary notions (although I could be wrong about that). However, if Empedocles did give notions of evolution, it would have been due to observations (something physical). Creationism relies on ancient myths and legends though, and in order to put trust in creationist ideas, one needs to believe in the bible and the stories within ( which are myths and legends, passed on and inspired by other myths and legends).

7. Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances.Evolutionists try to find animals that fit into their ‘evolutionary tree’. In the classic ‘horse story’, they arrange a group of animals with similar body shapes in order by size and say it shows the evolution of the horse. But is this actual ancestry or just a contrived arrangement? Except for the supposed ‘first horse’, which it probably isn’t, far from being an example of evolution, the fossils show the wide variation within a created kind. As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks’. Most of the creatures that would have had to exist if evolution were true have never been found, and some creatures have been found that don’t fit in the evolutionary tree at all, like the platypus. But evolutionists seize on a few creatures that sort of look like they might be halfway between a badger and a horse, or between a reptile and a bird. These rare apparent fits ‘prove’ evolution as much as occasional good guesses by a psychic ‘prove’ that he can read your mind.

The horse story, hmm, so what this is saying is that fossils are found, then simply placed in ascending order from simple to complex to show evolution. Its not as straightforward as this though, any sort of specimen found from the horse family and placed in a gradual line (depending on whether ancestral traits are consistent with descendants) depending on where they are found in the various layers of strata.

Most creatures wont, and dont exists until theres evidence found for them, by the way....

8. Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims.Some evolutionists insist that evolution has no metaphysical implications. ‘Evolution does not have moral consequences, and does not make cosmic purpose impossible.’ But others make dogmatic metaphysical applications. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science website includes a whole section on ‘Science, Ethics, and Religion’, with statements like, ‘Evolution is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. … In calling it a myth I am not saying that it is a false story. I mean that it has great symbolic power, which is independent of its truth. Is the word religion appropriate to it? This depends on the sense in which we understand that very elastic word. I have chosen it deliberately.’ Richard Dawkins said that ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist’.

I think the quote from AAAS may be out of context. I was unable to find the specific quote, which may be due to the re organization of the web site. The link on the CMI website led to a non-existent web page, so its hard to see what this quote was in fact saying.

*Edit

I finally found the source of the quote. It came from a paper published in the journal zygon, and indeed the quote was out of context, as well as misrepresented. The quote was from the opening paragraph, how odd to pick a quote from the opening paragraph of a 17 page paper, rife with many other positions and ideas on the philosophy of evolution being equated to a religion. Quote-mining at its best I suppose.

9. Some pseudoscientific theories … contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief.A pro-evolution web site states, ‘Until the 19^th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as “spontaneous generation”. This belief was due to the common observation that maggots or mould appeared to arise spontaneously when organic matter was left exposed. It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life. … No life has ever been observed to arise from dead matter.’
But evolutionists dismiss the fact that their theory requires the violation of this well-established law of science. ‘Did [Pasteur] prove that no life can ever come from non-living things? No, he didn’t, and this is because you cannot disprove something like that experimentally … ’. The fact that all the experimental evidence of the past 200 years contradicts their theory is irrelevant, because they speculate that it’spossible that there is some experiment that no one has yet tried where it might work.

Life forming from inorganic matter has nothing to do with evolution... this more so deals with origins of life, not how they've changed over time (Abiogenesis anyone?).

10. Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate.Evolutionists claim that their theory is science, but the National Center for Science Education, which is an anti-creationist lobbying group, admits that there’s a problem: ‘The failure of many students to understand and accept the fact of evolution is often a consequence of the naïve views they hold of the nature of science … . According to this naïve view, the key to the unique success of science at producing true knowledge is “The Scientific Method”, which, on the standard account, involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and then going into the laboratory to perform the crucial experiment. … In contrast, the work of many evolutionary biologists involves the reconstruction of the past. The methods they use do not conform to the standard view of “The Scientific Method”.’ So if you can’t actually prove your theory using the scientific method, which actually uses controlled experiment, as distinct from plausible story telling, simply declare that only ‘naïve’ people think that the scientific method has anything to do with ‘science’.

Another case of quote mining.... with a great amount left out to intentionally put the quote in a negative light, as if to say that 'Evolutionists admit themselves that their theory is defunct'. The quote comes from the NCSE, and the article discusses the way in which science is mistaught and misconstrued to the general public (lay people). The article can be found HERE and the various bits of the quote under the heading "Evolution and the Nature of Science).

The overall issue with many of these creationist publications is that they have an overall agenda to make any opposing ideas evil and corrupt. I encourage you, whoever reads this, or creationist publications to do more research than whats presented in CMI's or any other creationist publications. The more you look into what creationists are attempting to promote, and ultimately "dictate", over the masses, the more devious and unethical their methods become.

Atheism and families

Well,

Lets start out with an apology. I have almost seemingly neglected my duty to continue writing in this blog. No, its not by choice, but rather by commitment that I loose steam in doing posts. I'm hoping that this is a relevant apology though, as I'm quite unsure of how may visitors I actually get.None the less, I've found an interesting topic to blog about for today! I've begun to make a habit of visiting the major creationist websites (CMI, AiG being the main two) to seek out their literature. Today I found an article relating to another interest within the spectrum of the creationist termed "Evolution Controversy."Atheism and its apparently harsh implications on society.

The article om CMI, titled "Atheism, evolutionism (This is not even a recognized word) and families" found HERE , is an apparent commentary on another article published in Psychology Today titled "The Atheist at the Breakfast Table" by Bruce Grierson (Title leads to Griersons blog, where the article is published in full, and also contains a link to the shortened version published in Psychology Today). The CMI author(s), Douglas Oliver and Stuart Burgess, give a fairly brief overview of what Grierson's article talks about, and instead hyper-focus in on certain quotes and word usage to give a sense that the idea of Atheism (which somehow directly relates to evolution) is a spreading "disease" on modern society, and undoubtedly has "negative effects on churches, parents, and children."

Reading Grierson's actual article provides a much different, and less hostile, view of the topic within the article: Tolerance. Religious tolerance more precisely. In short, the religious-less (Atheists) are touted as a harsh group, and therefore, are looked down upon (especially within fundamental religious circles) due to a few within the group that promote it so outwardly (the late Christopher Hitchens, or Richard Dawkins as examples). But, there is another side to the matter that is not generally seen, the side that doesnt vehemently attack those in the religious sphere, which Grierson states, is "much larger than the section who does." A question was brought up in my mind: Why take an article, so obviously on the side of peaceful tolerance towards other, and twist it to put Atheism (as well as evolution) in such a bad light?

The CMI authors (I'm unsure of who did what) go on to present some examples of common misconceptions of Atheist, that Grierson's article apparently shows.

1) Atheists typically assume that they are open-minded, but they usually exclude even the possibility of a Creator, i.e. they are not. E.g., Julian Huxley famously said that “Modern science must rule out special creation or divine guidance”. Todd more recently admitted that he also believed that science excludes a Creator: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic”.

There are many issues within this statement, and right off the bat as well. Creationist also assume they are open minded, they study the sciences too to look at the evidence brought up that opposes their position, but immediately, and illogically (attempt to) refute what is presented to them. As well, open minded "Christians" would not downplay other views (religions included) if there was such an open-minded ideology among them. Grierson's article does not present the idea that "Atheists" are contradictory in being open minded thinkers, quite the opposite actually, in that tolerance can only come about when more than one view is explored rather than being only exposed to dogmatic views (and not specifically that of Creationism, and Christianity). Next is a quote from Julian Huxley, however, science does not study what is not observable or empirical, or repeatable, and bringing in the supernatural would hinder an explanation attempted by scientists on a certain phenomena. Then a quote from Todd is brought up, which is confusing due to the fact that no mention of this "Todd" has been brought up until his name is mentioned. Further investigation reveals a bit more than the simple quote; Todd goes on to say that "of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism", making the presupposition that S.C. Todd (who obviously wrote the article, only made know in the references) encourages the notion that science doesn't want God. Without going into too much detail on the article, titled "A view from Kansas on that evolution debate" gives an overview on some of the rulings on the debate to teach creationsim within science classrooms in Kansas, where at the time of the article, had banned the teaching of evolution. Todd essentially makes the plea that science needs to be taught properly, not dogmatically. Quote bombing is a terrible thing, it simply makes creationists look highly dishonest.

(2) They assume that they are ‘quiet’ and ‘non-fundamentalist’ people, when in fact their position is just as ‘loud’ and ‘fundamentalist’ (in the modern derogatory sense of intolerant and exclusionary) as that of anyone! To essentially worship pleasure rather than God (2 Timothy 3) might seem to be a non-religious, non-fundamentalist position but it is actually an (atheistic) fundamentalist/dogmatic position. Furthermore, to ignore God (if He exists, which is the question at issue) is actually a very bold and provocative thing to do—not a quiet, reasonable thing

This next misconception shows more dishonesty on the part of the CMI authors, and is exactly the point the Grierson makes in his article. The overly outspoken proponents of Atheism tend to be "loud" and "fundamentalist", which Creationists attribute to all Atheists, but the quiet and non-fundamentalist side is what is explored in Grierson's article, to in fact show that there is more to it than the aggressive proponents who are outspoken on the view. The point is made that this loud and fundamentalist action of certain individuals within the Atheism sphere, represents a derogatory sense of intolerance and  exclusion, but why? Grierson's article has nothing to do atheists thinking they are just quiet and nice about their views, and like ive already mentioned, reflect that tolerance is what a widespread portion practice. A great deal of the article talks about how to handle this as a parent, and when religious views are thrown into the picture, how you can handle those situations as an atheist; essentially, TALK to your children, DON'T indoctrinate.

(3) They assume that the majority of academics do not believe in God. However modern science encourages people to keep silent about God; scientists are not allowed to mention God or give Him glory in their research papers. And if a scientist does mention God, his career can be negatively affected. However, our personal experiences as academics are that there is very significant (but not articulated) sympathy for, e.g., intelligent design among academics in secular universities.

Here, the last misconception talks about the view of academics in relation to some intelligent creator. Apparently the majority of academics really do believe in God, otherwise, why would Atheists assume this. While there is a definite presence of God believing academics, there is still a larger amount of those that don't believe in the God of the Bible. This is only the broad spectrum of academia; narrowed down to what creationists are actually concerned about, there is an even smaller amount that believe in a God, and a minuscule portion that are creationist. I dont think I need to link to any stats, but you can very easily find these sorts of numbers online. That was only the first sentence in the third misconception, the rest of it deals with the apparent censorship of God believing professionals. Modern science makes not law, nor endorses the idea that ideas of God must be kept silent. In what context would a scientist, religious or not, have the need to mention God or give glory to Him in any technical paper? Lets take a look at a fairly recent paper (also the topic of scrutiny in a CMI article): the paper is titled Feathered Non-Avian Dinosaurs from
North America Provide Insight into Wing Origins, and although this is just a title, I'm sure you could gather that the paper deals with wing and feather developments in non-flight dinosaurs, correct? The point of the article is to detail the study which the paper is about, and the establishment of it being about dinosaurs, feathers, and wings certainly does not give need to praise the Lord. In fact, the paper makes no mention of thanks or praise to anyone, deity or not, other than the mention of contributors names, and a reference list from which ideas have been used from (these can be taken as a form of thanks, but are far from being directly this). The statement that academics that do make mention of God have their careers negatively affected, is a horrific distortion of any sort of truth (providing that any of it is at all true, this article HERE gives an instance of the sort of dishonesty I'm talking about).

The rest of the article goes on to vilify Grierson's article even further by "putting words in his mouth" and making unnecessary and irrelevant claims about past and famous forefathers of the scientific community being creationists, as well as saying that Grierson (and essentially all Atheistic evolutionists) are locked in a conspiracy to swindle the mass populous into believing that Atheists are not bad, or horrible people (it also attributes proponents of historical atrocities, such as Stalin and Hitler, to the teaching of atheistic and evolutionary thinking... surprise, surprise).

The mass population of creationists are in such a dire state IMO, there never seems to be major headway with their movement, both within the areas of scientific advancement (creation "science" only aims to disprove their opposing ideas, which is not to advance scientific hypotheses) and the area of gaining any major support for their position. I really have to wonder where it all stops, relentless as they are, there will eventually be an end to this sort of dishonest thinking.

How to Survive Secular College

So, once again I have decided against posting the rest of the "15 questions" article. Why? you ask, well while the post is complete, I keep finding other things I really want to blog about.

Take this for example; I decided to check out another creationist resource on the web. This time, instead of looking through CMIs website, I looked at AiGs site (Answers in Genesis; headed by Ken Ham). Most things along the same lines as at CMI (and generally any other creationist online source) I thought to try looking for something a little different than the usual spiel that creationists talk about. That was when a video popped up and piqued my interests.

The video was titled "How to survive secular college" and can be found HERE. The main idea behind the video is advice a creationist student (as well as the parents) should take when attending a college that does not believe the literal interpretation of the Bible. My first question was, why go to the lengths of giving advice on how to "survive" secular education. First thing that should be taken into account when looking into the topic is what the meaning of "secular" is, which simply is the stance that an institution or state does not necessarily have any religious bias. I think the term in this case is taken a bit out of context, as if to state that "secular colleges" are fervently against Christianity (which is the religion AiG follows) or religion in general. This gross misrepresentation of the post-secondary education system, and seems to vilify those who work in the system as proponents of "creation censorship".

Lets move on from the definition of "secular" though; the video is presented by a staff researcher of AiG named Jason Lisle, who (while it doesn't fully matter) holds a Ph.D.  in Astrophysics. Lisle begins with the issue of how to survive in a secular college,  and states that this is question often asked of him by parents of students who will be attending post-secondary schools. While it may be looking a little too much in the opening phrases, Lisle follows by making the claim that "students will be getting a lot of information that may not be entirely true" and "Pushes towards and evolutionary worldview rather than being objectively, factually true." Commonly, the creationist sources and proponents attribute dishonestly to institution that don't share their viewpoint ( I know, this is the same spiel that they usually talk about, but it was part of the video...). This is can be a particularly harmful viewpoint in the sense that it is generally an outright lie. What is taught by teachers in colleges is true from their own experiences in their respective fields and learned knowledge from years and years worth of recorded information. If a hypothesis has been changed, or new information has been brought up and verified to be valid, this is generally added into what teachers will talk about in their lectures. This doesn't constitute misrepresentation of facts.

Lisle's answer to this overall question can be done in a few steps; first is to keep solid in your faith, second is prayer, and third is to be a part of a good christian church. In my opinion, nothing wrong with giving advice on how to keep to your faith, but one small issue I have is with the next little bit of his steps to "surviving". Within the third step, Lisle warns that there are many churches out there that aren't very good for your faith as a christian. But, what constitutes Lisle`s advice, or the stance of AiG as "good christian teaching"?

The fourth step involves seeking out like minded individuals who are "good, solid christian creationists". Meaning "go to post secondary, but censor yourself from anything opposing your religion". Why this is an issue is due to the fact that limiting yourself from other viewpoints hinders ones ability to look at situations objectively, as well as being unbiased. Within the scope of law, individuals are innocent until proven guilty (while some instances become flawed, you shouldn't place judgment without looking into the facts).

Next comes the plug; If you want to survive secular education, you should jump right on getting material and resources from AiG. Shameless plug, as well as mistaken. While many creationists put some sort of work into their resource materials, it doesn't provide you with  any information to help you with your critical thinking skills, but rather how to ignore evidence and commit academic dishonesty ( this can be taken however you like, either as my "biased" opinion or a critique of many creationist articles by AiG, or any others).

Lisle finishes with the crux of surviving in a secular college, and that is to mislead to just get by unnoticed, and once completed, use your degree for the glory of God. I don't believe in my time as an undergraduate that I have ever had to simply, and dogmatically state the facts that I hear  in lectures or read in textbooks (maybe to a small degree as a first year student, where the basics are laid out). Rather, students are evaluated on the ability to asses the content critically, and make sense of it logically. This is hypocritical, and a stance that creationists tend to follow concretely, as in the beginning of the video Lisle warns that secular colleges will lie and censor information, but yet advises students entering into post-secondary to be dishonest and censor out from their minds anything that is in opposition.

I find it appalling that there is a need to give "advice" on how to survive secular colleges, when the point of attending resides in the pursuit of gaining specialized knowledge in specific areas. Why attempt to gain a working and applied knowledge in the area of hard sciences if your going to intentionally ignore information presented to you? Or more specifically, why enter into the field of hard sciences if you seek to sustain a knowledge and personal relationship with your faith? These aren't the reasons to gain a post-secondary  education. I would love to hear any opinions on the matter, so please, if your a visitor to this blog, give a comment in the comment box and tell me what you think!

Tragedy in Connecticut

I had originally planned my next post to be the second half of my response to CMIs "15 Questions for Evolutionists," but after yesterday's tragedy in Connecticut, decided to offer up my condolences to the victims and their families, as well as all those affected by the actions of one misguided individual.

What disturbs me most, being that the event has transpired and many have chimed in about it all over the internet, is the overwhelming amount of criticism ranging from President Obama's address to the USA, to the response from Creationists. I mention Creationists strictly because this blog is directed towards the topic of Creation vs Evolution; there are many who are not creationists that have left appalling remarks regarding the incident.

Let me first address the the latter population; Why? why even bother with remarks discussing Obama's "fake" tears, or stating this has been a staged event to make political agendas move forward (yeah, conspiracy theorists are coming out on this as well). A large amount of life was cut short yesterday, large amounts of life gets cut short everyday, but having it done so much more closer to home is what hits people the most. Does that mean young lives in war torn countries dont matter, no, wake up people! Being a student in university, I have genuine fears and thoughts of a person coming into my classrooms and destroying lives of people and myself. I'm not a parent, but I have a niece and nephew and would be heartbroken if this situation happened to them. I have family from my spouses side that has young children, or even young children from my brother-in-laws side that in the case that this would happen to them, I would also be heartbroken. The point is, people get emotional about this because it has hit so close to home; this doesnt mean that children from other nations that have their lives cut short dont matter. I find people who bring this up to be hypocritical, why not go and help those children or their families if your concerned enough to mention it?

As for the creationist perspective, some remarks have already hit the www, and while not surprised, I have to say it is just as disturbing as the events that happened in Connecticut yesterday.

Eric Hovind (son of Creationist Kent Hovind) Tweeted: Are you happy now that the shooter grew up in a school without God? So while this doesn't speak for all proponents of Creation, it may be a general concensus that humanity is crumbling due to a lack of faith in God. News flash, humanity has been crumbling for over 10,000 years. Humanity borders on depravity, whether or not faith in the christian God is present. People kill in the name of God, people kill due to mental health issues, people kill due to greed, people kill no matter what the situation, again with or without a God.

I suppose this rant leads into another creationist trait; blame, as in Creationists always point the finger towards an opposing opinion, mainly for their own personal gain.

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not sure. All that should matter is the healing process that the victims will hopefully go through, as this situation is one that will never fully heal.