Skip to main content

This Week in Creationism

Often I find that I'm overwhelmed by the sheer amount of output that the young-earth creationist organizations are capable of producing. I'm only one man, and even when I blogged more frequently I couldn't keep up with it. At most, I can deal with and dispense with a few articles from some of the major creationist organizations. This week I thought that I would take a different tack. Rather than focusing on a single article, I'm going to give a brief overview of some of the most recent articles coming out of Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries and Creation Moments. Here we go...

Creation Ministries International: (home of the supposed "Unanswerable Questions" for Evolutionists and of the Hovind clan)

--Creation Ministries condemns the "framework hypothesis" as untenable in an article about history and pseudo-history. The framework hypothesis is one way of stating that Genesis 1-11 is literary rather than literal, and CMI won't stand for this. The irony that the link is titled "Pseudo-history" in an article that posits that Genesis is literal history is too rich for further commentary.

--CMI has released their 2012 "Creation Calendar" for purchase. With beautiful photographs, CMI tells you to give it to a friend and buy one for yourself (bulk discounts available) and see how the landscapes "confirm the truth of the Bible," by which they no doubt mean a literal Genesis. I know I can't wait to send them money for my copy!

Answers in Genesis: (home of the Creation Museum and Ken Ham, the missing link between idiots and creationists)

--Elizabeth Mitchell, that paragon of self-righteous ignorance, parrots creationist talking points on the evolution of language, asserts that the burial of a dinosaur nest is evidence for the Flood and mockingly states that Australopithecus sediba isn't a missing link at all, that the only missing links are those that exist in the minds of those who accept evolution in this week's News to Note. She also refers to Genesis as an "eyewitness account". Substitute "creationist" in place of "evolutionist" in Mitchell's statement, and I might just agree with her.

--Answers in Genesis wishes us all a Happy Thanksgiving, imploring us to remember its Christian origins and help spread the Gospel (dinosaurs on the Ark and all) to "unbelievers." I wonder if it would make Ken Ham upset to know that he enjoyed a nice Thanksgiving dinosaur for his meal...

Creation Moments: (home to scientific information gleaned from publications in the 1980's)

--Apparently the fact that the lunch of mastodons was preserved in their stomach is evidence of a young earth after all. Surely, the creationists think, the fact that the contents of a mastodon's lunch was preserved means the world must be quite young? But the fact that the mastodons were preserved by freezing speaks otherwise...this time, they don't even cite where their information came from in the first place.

--The fact that scientists can't agree on how the sun produces energy (news to most of us, certainly) is evidence that creationism is true, in the minds of Creation Ministries. In their mind, scientists want to think the sun is old because for evolution to be true they "need" it to be old. Alas for the creationists, the source for this moment is from 1989. Science, unlike creationism, has moved on since then.

This roundup wouldn't be complete without mention of what Ray Comfort (better known in some circles as "the banana man") is up to:

--the occasion of Thanksgiving is used by Comfort to shamelessly promote his anti-abortion movie and bash atheists who are, he thinks, thankful for nothing because they accept evolution. No real surprise there.

Thanks for staying with me on our whirlwind tour through the Wonderland of creationist news and views for the week. They're endlessly entertaining, aren't they?

Comments

  1. I really doubt he spoke to an atheist who "wasn't thankful for anything." Unless he some how twisted that out of "not thankful to god." In which case that statement would be true, but taken out of context. Creationists are retarded.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Unanswerable Questions" for Evolution Part One

Creation Ministries International has launched a new initiative, which seems a lot like all the other creationists blitzkriegs before it. With the wonderfully creative tagline of "Question Evolution", CMI intends to challenge "evolutionists" and their "indoctrination" of high school students with the supposed dogma of evolution. They also aim to  cut the population of atheists by half , presumably by challenging the "faith" that every atheist (and only atheists, no "real Christians") is supposed to hold in Darwin's great idea. The main thrust of this is a tract with fifteen "unanswerable" questions for evolutionists. I'm done putting quotation marks around the word, evolutionists; from here on out I ask my readers to recognize that it is a creationist term that is about as silly as calling someone a general relativist (accepts general relativity) or germist (for accepting germ theory). Regardless, CMI seems just as i...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...

The Absurdity/Agony of War

Science writer Mary Roach is never one to shy away from parts of science that verge on the absurd, as anyone who has read any of her books surely knows. I'd read two of her previous books, and been enchanted enough by Roach's unique combination of endless curiosity and a wry sense of humor that I rushed to lay my hands on her newest book. Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War will not fail in living up to the expectations that fans of her work will bring. Those who have never read her before will be hard-pressed to put down a book that I finished in a few short days.  The real joy of reading something by Mary Roach is her talent for seeking out strange areas of science that a reader might never have known about. As an investigator, she answers questions you never knew you had. Her newest work   is no exception. We discover, for instance, how the military tests the ability of a fighter jet to survive a mid-air collision with a large bird--by firing a dead chicken...