The Questioning Librarian

Usually in writing about young-earth creationism, the focus is on the damage it does to science and to science education. This is quite understandable, as the primary focus of the young-earthers is to push a narrow, sectarian, and highly unscientific worldview that has done serious harm to science education. While this is, usually, enough to worry about, I've been thinking over the past few days about the damage that creationism does to women, having read my way through a handful of feminist books in recent weeks. At first glance, one may think that this is a silly idea, but as creationism in the United States represents the worldview of reactionary elements within Christianity it also does serious harm through its portrayal of women. This may seem incidental, that the view young-earth creationism holds of women is merely collateral damage from an already harmful worldview (to say nothing of their view of homosexuality, which is, as it were, rather unevolved ), but it is important...

When watching creationists, one is struck by the unintentional irony of so much of what passes for discourse among them. In the first place, many who speak for young-earth creationism clearly do not have the first clue about what evolution really is, its importance in biology, or how it developed as an idea, to say nothing of their lack of understanding of geology, fossils, and chemistry (truly, I think that so many of them don't actually know what carbon-dating is, or that there are other dating methods that are used). I've recently experienced this irony on a creationist internet group, where people who are even more out of touch with reality than the typical young-earth creationist routinely accuse the defenders of evolution of lying and quote-mining...when the only people who are quoting at all are the creationists! But for true irony, we have to turn to Answers in Genesis and our old friend Ken Ham. The irony is rich when it comes from them, an organization that prete...

One of the most charming things about Answers in Genesis is a series of articles they call " Arguments Christians Shouldn't Use ," citing a number of arguments that young-earth creationists might use in defense of a literal reading of Genesis that even the charlatans at AiG don't think are good arguments. This is, to anyone who has read the standard fare of this organization, ironic in the extreme. A quick glance over the list of these "bad arguments" reveals claims that most defenders of evolution have heard before in one form or another, ranging from the simply inane (" If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today? ") to those that are outright lies (The infamous " Darwin Deathbed Conversion " fraud).   The ordinary creationist might be forgiven for seeing Answers dismiss these patently bad arguments and thinking that, since the organization isn't willing to use just any  argument to advance their claims, Ken Ham and a...

In the years I've spent watching the walking, babbling idiocy that is young earth creationism, I have learned never to underestimate what they will do, never to be surprised at what they claim, and certainly never to think that most of those who believe this way will be open to reason. No claim is too absurd, no denial of reality too patently ridiculous for the proponents of a literal Genesis. Belief is a powerful thing, especially a belief that refuses to see objective evidence, and such are the beliefs of young earth creationism. Whether it is Ken Ham or Eric Hovind, they are united in their conviction that true Christianity requires that the Bible be taken literally, especially the creation myth of Genesis. Further, they believe that to accept, as many Christians do, that evolution is reality is to join the ranks of the compromisers, and to risk eternal damnation.   While there is no debate among scientists as to the fact of evolution, this has no meaning to ...

I suppose the occasion for this post is not only the winding down of grad school for me, but also the intersection of two most interesting people. Ken Ham, former biology teacher out of Australia and know-nothing creationist head of "Answers in Genesis", has reissued his old saw "The Lie: Evolution" under a new subtitle, namely "The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years," no doubt to creationist acclaim. I suspect, however, that the content will be just as stale as the first edition of this man's magnum opus, the same hackneyed arguments that patient scientists and educated non-scientists have deconstructed and debunked for just as long as Ham's been saying them. Not having read this new edition, how can I say this? Quite simply, the book's description on Ham's website contains the same arguments that I've been hearing and reading from the AiG emissaries for years, whether it was from the man himself or his legion of pseudo-scientific proxie...

While sometimes the struggle against the pseudoscientific tripe that is creationism seems never-ending, those of us on the side of science and reason occasionally get a win. This we have done in the past week; in yet another slap against creationism, the British government announced that "free schools", (local schools, often religious in nature but funded by the government and usually exempt from the educational curriculum of Britain), often called "faith schools" will lose funding if they attempt to teach creationism as science. Make no mistake, this is a victory for science. While Great Britain has traditionally ranked very high in public acceptance of evolution, the spread of these "faith schools" has led to a growing fear that this will be used to spread the religious doctrine of creationism. I am very grateful to Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough for spearheading this effort , making sure that Britain doesn't slide back from knowing and under...

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 ...

A student wrote to Answers in Genesis for advice. What he got was the sophistry, bad-arguments and muddle-headed thinking that so characterizes that organization. The exchange is fine amusement, if one is in the mood to simply laugh at nonsense rather than feel the anger that often accompanies the attempts of the anti-science crowd to lie, distort and malign evolution. The student in question is afraid of majoring in science because of the "stigma" a young-earth creationist would get from the "Darwinist camp." Already, I'm saddened to see a student so interested in science have his enthusiasm tempered in the name of fundamentalist dogma. The authors of the article, two of the lesser lights of Answers in Genesis apparently, whom I've never heard of before, responded with a lengthy article, part advice and part delusion. They first recommend that this student consider attending one of the AiG-approved colleges where young-earth creationism is taught as scie...

Over at Answers in Genesis, we lucky internet-users can read all of Ken Ham's book online, for free. Unfortunately, The Lie: Evolution  isn't exactly the material that most of us would choose to read, even if it was handed to us. Be that as it may, I was given a link to one of the chapters, called " The Root of the Problem ." As Ken would have it, the divide between evolution and creationism is based on worldviews...and in fact I have to agree with him, to a point. Trust me, I never thought that I'd be agreeing with Ken Ham...but here I am, saying that he's right about this. The problem is that creationists have a different worldview from those who accept science. But that is the only thing he has right; he doesn't even correctly identify which worldviews are at war. It isn't a question of whether your view of the world includes God or not that divides evolution from creation, because while few people who are creationists do not believe in God (this ...

Great news from Answers in Genesis; they're spreading the lies and stupidity of creationism to the Arab world, where, presumably, they should have their work cut out for them. While perhaps the message of Biblical creationism won't be particularly welcome to the devout, creationism is already well at home in many Arab or majority Muslim nations (after all, the only surveyed country that ranks lower than the U.S. in acceptance of evolution is Turkey). But, Ken laments, AiG can only do so much. While they can send Terry Mortenson, one of their speakers, to Egypt to talk about biblical creationism, they don't have the resources to send their emissaries everywhere, a fact for which I imagine that we should be grateful. However, he sees his organization, and their massive output of articles, books, DVD's, etc (some of which, including a website, are now available in Arabic), as a " reservoir" of resources for others to use in promoting creationism. Answers in Gene...

If there is one thing the folks at Answers in Genesis do not like, aside from evidence, naturally, it is being mocked or having their positions laughed at. But they just make it so darn easy to stand back and laugh, long and uproariously, whenever they talk. This week, their opinion voiced by the estimable Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, whom we've encountered before on this blog, AiG takes issue with the Doonesbury comic mocking the Louisiana Science Education Act , allowing the teaching of "evidence contrary to evolution" or "problems with evolution" or other such rot that has more basis in fundamentalist ideology than it does in evidence and science. Dr. Mitchell (a medical doctor, not a PhD scientist, I hasten to add), is furious that not only were they mocked but they claim that their positions are "distorted." The teacher in the comic "delivers a series of erroneous and misleading statements." For instance, the character claims creationists ...

Well, I suppose it's actually a darling little toddler at this point, but in reality this new field of "biology" (at least in the creationist mindset), was stillborn from the beginning. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/bara-what Baraminology attempts to present a biblical classification of species based on the original "kinds", thus assuming microevolution in the years since the original "creation." The author, Dr. Todd Charles Wood, asserts that he uses "sophisticated mathematical formulas" to determine the original kinds that Adam would have named. He believes that these formulas, whatever they are, have led him to a categorization close to that of the so-called original. Funny, it looks like science, sounds like science, but alas, it is not science! This purported "new field" is nothing but creationist apologetics wrapped up in the guise and rhetoric of science. It is a distortion, meaningless talk that is ...