What is an Articulate Informed Creationist

I'm just looking for creationists who are familiar with creationism. At present all they seem to know is "evolution is wrong" and "God did it." They seem unaware of all past efforts to frame creationism in scientific terms and of the reasons why so much effort was expended to do this.There's nothing to fear from those who advocate teaching that God did it because the Bible says so. Even the most ignorant of school boards recognize that this violates the establishment clause of the constitution. If someone wants to believe that their religious beliefs trump science, or even that they are science, then I'm inclined to just let them go their own way. They're no direct threat to science education.The real threat comes from those who would cloak creation in scientific terms, a Trojan Horse designed to sneak religion into the classroom. There's much to fear from this segment of creationism because claiming, for example, that the Grand Canyon is evidence of a global flood, or that the complexity of life is evidence of a designer, makes a lot of sense to most members of most schools boards. These are the kinds of issues I think are important to discuss here so that accurate information can come to light.--Percy

My concern is science education. What any religious members or groups believe in the privacy of their own homes and churches is not a threat to science education. If someone wants to believe that God created the earth 6000 years ago then I don't think many of us would have much objection. Debating religious beliefs is as fascinating a pastime as debating evolution, but it isn't this site's primary focus.Where such religious beliefs become a threat to science education is when religious members or groups believe that their beliefs are also science and should be taught in science class. The history of creationism which can be outlined in many ways, but many would agree that the highlights of the outline include Paley and his watch, the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the early 20th century, Morris and his book The Genesis Flood and the emergence of creation science, the court cases finding creation science to be thinly disguised Genesis, the rise of ID, and the court case ruling that ID was merely thinly disguised creation science.You see, creationism isn't about an effort to convert to people to conservative Christianity. If it were most of us would take no notice. Creationism is all about promoting the view that the Biblical account of creation is scientific. What is most strange about the creationists here now is their unawareness of this simple fact, and the enthusiasm with which they pursue self-defeating arguments based upon God and the literal inerrancy of the Bible.--Percy

Let me try an example. At the request of concerned parents, your local school board is sponsoring a hearing about including creation science in the high school science curriculum. Here is an example of an effective creationist presentation: That's the type of presentation that scares me, because few school board members know enough science to realize there's no truth to any of it.Here's an example of a presentation that doesn't bother me at all: And so forth. Any school board hearing this would easily recognize that it violates the establishment clause of the constitution because you can't teach religion (in this case Christianity) in the public schools. They would also easily recognize that it isn't science, and even if they didn't know about the establishment clause would at least recognize that science class isn't the proper place for lessons about God and Bible.Desiring to counter evolution's threat to faith, and recognizing that lessons based on God and Bible would never be found acceptable for public schools, creationists worked very hard for years to craft something called "creation science." I'm putting it in quotes this time to distinguish it from creationism.In order to give creationism the appearance of science, creationists removed all references to God and Bible from the story of Genesis, wrote papers and held conferences, and made requests to school boards, state legislatures and text book publishers for inclusion of treatments of creation science.It was all a scam, of course, but an immensely successful and persuasive one. For example, more than half of all Americans reject evolution and believe the world is 6000 years old.Creation science suffered two serious judicial defeats, one in 1982 with McLean v. Arkansas, and the other in 1987 with Edwards v. Aguillard. After these defeats creationism ceased seeking legislative remedies and concentrated on school boards, text book publishers, and average Americans. As I've noted, they've been very successful in this, and noting the difficulty many discussion boards had in maintaining civil and constructive dialogue I started this hopefully neutrally moderated website to examine the question of whether creation science is actually science. Naturally we also examine a raft of related issues, but that's the primary focus.And so it seems very strange these recent days to witness a stream of creationists who do not seem to care about maintaining the illusion that creation science is real science. A creationist who knows that creationism's only hope of gaining entry into science classrooms hinges upon maintaining the appearance that creationism is science and not religion (i.e., that creationism is actually creation science) by not resorting to religious arguments and evidence such as God and Bible, because to do so loses the debate outright.--Percy

I agree.An informed creationist is aware that creationism's key short-term goal is its acceptance as every bit as much legitimate science as evolution. But whether you agree with it or not, I assume you're aware that creationism's primary short-term goal is acceptance as legitimate science. "Articulate" probably doesn't need to be explained. For an example of an inarticulate creationist check out some of IamJoseph's posts.An "informed" creationist is one who understands, for a clear example, that it would be an incredibly dunderheaded move at a school board meeting considering inclusion of creationism in the science curriculum to use Christian religious arguments. I see this board as an opportunity for evolutionists and creationists to engage the question of creationism as legitimate science in the same way that creationists would portray it at school board meetings.--Percy

It occurs to me that after Dover the creationism movement, both ID and traditional YEC-ism, may look back on what they've accomplished and conclude, just as you suggest, that it is no longer necessary to gain representation in the science classroom. Their efforts with school boards have made many school systems leery of detailed treatments of evolution, and school boards are very influential in the textbook selection process. This combined with their efforts with text book publishers have shorn many biology textbooks of meaningful treatments of evolution.Without looking up the statistics I still think it would be accurate to say that the percentage of Americans who reject evolution and accept a young earth has gradually increased over the past few decades, especially recently in the face of the argument from design.In light of these factors I think it could well be that creationists would look back with satisfaction upon their accomplishments. Evolution isn't defeated, of course. In scientific circles it is stronger than ever. But in the sociocultural context where it counts evolution has been discredited and creationism has won.--Percy