Monday, June 30, 2008

The Cons of The Cons of The Cons of Creationism

The irredoubtable Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research comes to us today with a rebuttal! It seems that some meanies at the New York Times have cast (Gasp!) aspersions against creationism!

The Cons of "The Cons of Creationism"

A recent New York Times online editorial titled “The Cons of Creationism”1 is a typical example of the way the secular media routinely mischaracterize creation science.

As opposed to mis-characterizing creationism as "science".

I'm racking my brain on this one, but complaining about someone else mis-characterizing creationism while you blithely mis-characterize creationism is such insane levels of irony that I guessing you took time off of your day job selling iron pyrite encased irons to Iron Man to write this article.

Let us critique the editorial’s claims, one item at a time.

Yes! Lets! * sits down and waits to watch the train wreck coming *

[Creationists] believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology—or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view—are not being disadvantaged.
So creationists believe that it is best to teach students to be ignorant about Darwinian biology? Actually, for decades informed creationists have advocated a two-model approach,2 where students are taught the pros and cons of both views

Both views! The view that God created man and the universe in 6 days and the view that God created evolution and let it run it's course. You see, down here in the Bible Belt, we listen to both kinds of theology! Yee-haw!

and then permitted to evaluate the situation for themselves.

This is one of the weirdest parts of the deal. Since when is high school the proper place to decide scientific theories? Shouldn't we be doing that in professional laboratories and then teaching them what the experts have already learned?

Oh wait...I forgot! We already have done exactly that and the support for creationism is exactly zero whereas the support for evolution is decade after decade of scientific analysis, testing, and verification!

[Teaching] the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution…is code for teaching creationism.
We beg the reader to consider that teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution is actually code for “teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution.”

Considered...and rejected once we took an actual look at the goals of the people who are saying this garbage.

The idea that creationists are being subversive is without merit, a mere smear. It is likely that the author has not bothered to consider that there actually are weaknesses to evolution.

Wow! So, you've never met an actual scientist before, eh?

The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator.
What is “a creationist system of science”? The author seems to think that creationists invoke God to explain every empirical phenomenon. That may be animism, but it is certainly not creationism.

Here's a nice view of what a creationist system of science is as according to your own institute. Thanks for asking!

Adequate clarity on these important issues requires more precise definitions.

And use of, you know, actual science.

We must distinguish between historical science and empirical science. Both creation scientists and evolutionary scientists practice the same kind of empirical science—observing the repeatable. Just like creation scientists, Darwinists typically use naturalistic interpretations to explain the operation of observable and repeatable phenomena. However, Darwinists mistakenly, and by faith, presume exclusively naturalistic causes to explain the origin of phenomena. There are no “gods” causing light to refract or masses to gravitate, but that does not mean that there was no God responsible for the origin of lights and masses!

Occam's Razor...the New Faith!

The New York Times editorial ends with “The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.” Of course science belongs in science classrooms—that is our point! The religion of evolutionary atheism does not belong, nor does evolutionary history or methodological naturalism philosophy.

"The religion of evolutionary atheism"

These words...I do not think they mean what you think they mean. Because it seems like you think they mean anything at all!

I mean, really..."the religion of evolutionary atheism"?!? Get a dictionary and come back after reading it. It'll help everyone involved. Seriously.


Anonymous said...

You sound like a moron. Do you even know what you are talking about? There is not a shred of evidence of any type of MACRO - Evolution ever occurring. We have never noticed a dog "evolving" into a cat. Wake up and stop pedaling ideas that are bogus

bobxxxx said...

Maybe the Institute for Creation Research is right. Maybe the entire universe is 6,000 years old and maybe magically created people used to live with magically created dinosaurs. Maybe the assholes for Jesus really do know more about science than any scientist.

Keep up the good work Jim.