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

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

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 ...