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!