Discussing the evidence that support creationism

Again, I want to know the arguments before I start arguing.

Proper names and titles are capitalized. And I did not invent that title, but rather it is part of common usage.If you choose to subvert a language to your theological whims, that is your problem, not mine.Frankly, I view all gods about the same. Yet I have observed the rules of English in my posts.

Okay

My emphasis What the hell is "evolutionism"? Look at the quote again: Evolution, not evolutionism! Why did you just pull a bait-and-switch there? We were talking about evolution, but you switched it to a creationist invention, a manufactured scapegoat. A lie, a deception.Define that term! Then justify your having injected it into discussion of something entirely different, evolution.

In science, fact simply means something that is known to such a high degree of confidence that it is as close to certainty as possible. Evolution falls in that class. Because things that happen leave evidence. that is why I can say with a high degree of confidence, even state it as fact, that you had a great-great-great-great-great-grandfather even though I was not there. You exist therefore the likelihood that you had ancestors is pretty certain.We can also see evidence, even evidence from millions and billions of years ago. It was that overwhelming body of evidence that caused the idea of a young earth to be discarded over 100 years ago.Now if you think that Creationism can be supported, all you need to do is present the models that explain the evidence. We have many threads here at EvC where that can be done.We have one looking at the Grand Canyon from the bottom up, another looking for a Creationist explanation for sand, another looking for Creationist explanations of Salt beds and domes, another looking for Creationist explanations for angular nonconformities, another trying to explain how the stars seen might fit in a young universe.It is not for want of looking, the fact is, Creationists have never been able to explain the evidence seen.Maybe you can be a first?AbE:Again, and please understand that I am speaking to you as a very devout Christian who is deeply involved in Christianity, the church and Christian education, who grew up learning about the old universe and evolution in a Christian Church School, you are being presented false dichotomies.Science simply teaches us "How God Did IT'"Let me point you to yet more sources, A Catechism of Creationand Christianity and science - are they contradictory?and Radiometric Dating A Christian PerspectiveEdited by jar, : add sources

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I tend to base my opinions on something that I have studied. When I am unread about a particular topic I view it with an open mind and expect that my opinions (if I have any) are likely to change. Your methods of viewing reality and accepting information are quite disturbing. There is a small chance (I'm talking 1.00*10^-10000000%) of your method resulting in a real education on any particular topic.

Lots of creos have come here saying that. Very few of them have ever shown any real interest in trying to learn. However, I am willing to take you at your word for the moment, and will attempt to explain a few things to you.Science is the process of making observations of the natural world, developing hypotheses to explain what we see, making predictions based on those hypotheses and testing those predictions by comparing them to further observations. That is how science works, in a nutshell.You claim that we cannot know anything about the prehistoric past because nobody was there to observe it. Implicit in this claim is the idea that we can't know anything without direct observation. This idea is false, at least as far as science is concerned. Processes that occurred in the past left evidence behind. That evidence can be observed and hypotheses formed on the basis of those observations. Predictions can be made based on those hypotheses, and those predictions can be tested by further observations.You may agree or disagree with the validity of this process as it applies to prehistoric events, but science relies on it every day, and it allows science make predictions about future discoveries that are borne out.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It's possible, but perhaps unlikely. Did you read this section of the wikipedia page? It discusses the difficulties with silicon-based life.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!

I was there. And I can tell you that evolution did happen, and that there was no global flood, and that the earth is older than 6000-10,000 years, because I'm older than that!

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!

Laudable intentions. I do hope that you are sincere.Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):

quote:

---

31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

---

So you see, you have two tasks before you:
1. learning what evolution and science are
2. Learning what "creation science" is and its claims and the history of those claims, including their repeated refutation.A big problem you need to overcome is that so far you've only been fed {mis}information by creationist sources. They're not going to tell you the truth about evolution and science and they most certainly are not going to tell you the truth about their claims. They present you with strawman caricatures of evolutionary and scientific ideas, such as "evolutionism", and then make a big show of demolishing those strawmen, all the while stay well clear of evolution itself.To state it explicitly, my position is that I oppose "creation science" because it is thoroughly dishonest. I do accept evolution because it's the best explanation that we have for life as we find it, but I am not opposed to people rejecting evolution, just so long as they are honest about it. It's when people reject evolution for the wrong reasons, because of the lies of "creation science", and they then seek to spread those lies to others that I voice my objections. You want to reject and oppose evolution? OK fine, but do it for the right reasons and be honest to yourself about those reasons. And reject and oppose evolution, not some creationist strawman deception like "evolutionism".You have already encountered the acronym, but do not appreciate it yet. I've only seen it used here and I'm not quite sure what the "P" stands for, but PRATT means "previously refuted a thousand times". I've also seen it described as "slaying the slain". A PRATT is a creationist claim which newbies keep posting here even though that claim has already been refuted a thousands times before during the past few decades. Even the professional creationists keep using them, because they're not interested in the truth, but rather only in convincing you.That's an important thing to remember and one of the biggest differences between science and creationism. In science, the goal is to discover all we can about the natural world. Since scientists rely on the research of others, they have a vested interest in ensuring that that research is sound. So they will repeat the experiments of others and test their results, just as they know other scientists will repeat and test their own experiments and results. And if a scientist is found to have lied or to have faked something or to have perpetrated a hoax, that scientist's career is over; he/she will be rejected by the scientific community.On the other hand, the goal of creationism is to convince. A creationist's claims are not tested for being accurate or true, but rather only on how convincing it sounds. And if that creationist is exposed as having lied, then the creationist community does nothing about it, but rather continues to use his claims just so long as they still sound convincing. True, he may back off from the claim for a while, but then when he figures that everybody's forgotten about it -- or a new batch of suckers have arrived -- he'll trot that claim out again as "new" evidence, even though it's already decades old.And the followers don't care about truth; they just want more convincing-sounding "ammo" to proselytize with. Read the story of fundamentalist Christian Carl Drews at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/mystory.html. He had to leave his church because they sided with using lies and deception. In one incident where his pastor had him attend a "creation science" class, he returned the next week with a list of the lies in the previous lesson's tape and corrections, but none of the other "fine Christians" would even look at it. They wanted proselytizing "ammo", not the truth. As former creationist Scott Rauch said: "I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed."On my site I relate a similar event which demonstrates the danger of using PRATTs:

quote:

---

Here is a true story to illustrate that point. Back around 1991 at The City mall (now completely rebuilt as The Block) in Orange, California, creationist Scott Alexander was hosting a series of amateur-night creation/evolution debates in which the members of the audience were invited to get up and make presentations. One young creationist (I would judge him to have been about 18 to 21 years old) got up and announced that he had some new hard science that would blow the evolutionists away: the speed of light has been slowing down! The pro-evolution half of the audience immediately burst into uncontrollable laughter. That claim of Setterfield's had already been known to them for a decade, it had been refuted many times, and they started to explain to the poor hapless creationist exactly why that claim was false. He didn't know what had hit him.

---

A good source of information and history on claims is the Talk.Origins Archive at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy. They also have FAQs which explain a lot about science and evolution. If you really want to learn, then dig in.I also have an outline for a presentation I gave at my church: No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/EarlyBird.html. Part of it deals with the history of the anti-evolution movement, whose hey-day was in the 1920's when they got "monkey laws" enacted in four states. Yes, they melted out of the public eye due to the press coverage of the Scopes Trial and the subsequent death of their leader, but those "monkey laws" remained in force for the next four decades, until they were struck down by Epperson vs Arkansas (1968). Now because evolution could not longer be barred from public schools for religious reasons, the anti-evolution movement invented a new deception called "creation science", whose deception, "The Two Model Approach" (a classic "false dilemma", AKA "false dichotomy"), was then used to push for "balanced treatment". Another name for "creation science" was playing the game of "Hide the Bible". This deception was exposed when the Arkansas and Louisiana "balanced treatment" laws of the early 1980's were challenged in court and struck down as being religious. At that point, the anti-evolution movement switched to playing a new game, "Hide the Creationism", as they then employed the rhetorics of "intelligent design". Same game (except ID stays well away from "creation science's" weakest link, its young-earth claims).Let us know how your studies go.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Yes it is.You may not have seen the proof, but this is not to say that there isn't any. It means that you've got all your beliefs about the subject from creationist websites. You should have proof-read that more carefully. Because we can look at the evidence that exists now to find out about what happened in the past.If, in order to deny evolution, you have to deny that it is possible to know anything at all about the past "because we weren't there", then don't you see how desperate your situation is?

try using a public library under the topic "Evolution"

Another good place to start, as I had already suggested, is the Talk.Origins Archive (talk.origins is a well-known newsgroup that has been discussing creation/evolution for many years; don't post there unless you're really ready, because they don't pull their punches). Start at this page, The Talk.Origins Archive: Must-Read FAQs, which links to their must-read FAQ files. Includes FAQs on what evolution is, what creationist misconceptions about evolutions, and some of the evidence for evolution.Please remember the Sun Tsu citation. If you ever want to oppose evolution, then you must know everything you can about evolution. You say that your school doesn't teach it. My impression is that you're starting college (please correct me if I'm wrong) and that you're attending a Christian school which is why it doesn't teach evolution. Consider how anti-evolution forces are shooting themselves in the collective foot by not teaching their kids evolution: how could they possibly expect those kids to fight against evolution effectively if they keep them ignorant of their enemy? Ironically, if they do teach their kids evolution, then they completely shoot both collective feet clean off, because then their kids would see through the lies that they had been raised on. Creationists don't dare learn evolution.Kent Hovind quotes an anti-public school film, "Let My Children Go", in his claim: "75% of all children raised in Christian homes who attend public schools will reject the Christian faith by their first year of college." (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html#75_PERCENT). Of course, both he and the film he quoted interpret that to mean that public schools are anti-Christian. However, I have read the testimonials of several ex-creationists who went through that experience. What happened is that they started learning for the first time what evolution and science and the evidence really are and they discovered that their parents and their religious leaders had lied to them all their lives. I've also read and heard the testimonials of several atheists: one of the most prominent reasons they had for becoming atheists was either having been betrayed by their religious leaders or else discovering that their religious leaders were lying to them.Glenn R. Morton is a practicing petroleum geologist whose original geology training was by creationists. Having to work daily with hard geological facts that creationism had taught him did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning, he was driven to the verge of atheism. Not by geology, but rather by creationism. On his web site, he offers several personal testimonials (No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm#pers), along with his own, such as one by Steve Smith (No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ssmith.htm) who entered a small church college thoroughly hooked on "creation science" and "Flood Geology" and took a geology class:

quote:

---

I went to that first Geology class prepared to meet the Devil on his own ground. I knew every argument for a young earth and flood geology backwards and forwards. However instead of meeting the Devil, I met a man with a deep love for God and for teaching Geology. He started every class with a devotional thought and a prayer and then he began to teach Geology. He didn't argue Creation/Evolution. He simply taught Geology. I listened to the history of Geology and began to study all the methods and the knowledge accumulated by generations of geologists (many of whom were devout Christians). Bit by bit the evidence for an old earth became overwhelming and with it was a lack of any real evidence for a young earth and the type of Flood described by Henry Morris and others. I didn't even have a chance to argue Creationism in that class, every argument was destroyed by what I could see and demonstrate in the rocks themselves. By this time, I was very confused as to how I would ever reconcile my science and my Christianity.
. . .
{expresses his firm belief as a Christian}
. . .
Having said this, I'm not real concerned that everyone becomes a Theistic Evolutionist like myself. However, I am very concerned about movements within the Church that want to rewrite science to make it fit their interpretation of the Bible. I am concerned when people have to check their mind along with their hat at the door of a church and are asked to accept statements as truth without testing them. I am concerned about Christians who see scientists as engaged in some humanist conspiracy to destroy the Bible and Christianity.
. . .
When one bases their faith upon the rise or fall of a scientific theory, they are on real "sinking sand." When I left for college, I believed these sorts of either/or statements - many people do. If I had learned the facts of geology or biology or physics or astronomy or anthropology or geochronology or ... under the teaching of someone other than a godly professor, the crisis to my faith would have been much more severe. I feel it is very unlikely that I would be a Christian today. I would probably be a bitter agnostic and not because of science but because my Christianity set me up to fail.
. . .
I suppose that is why this Creation/Evolution issue is so important to me. I know that I sometimes talk about this topic so much that others get tired of hearing it. I know my wife does and I'm sure that my pastor does too. But when one has a close call with spiritual death, it becomes a critical issue. Every year, I see young Christians go away to college with the idea that science, in one form or another, is some sort of Satanic conspiracy. Sooner or later they end up struggling with their faith in the light of new knowledge. Some will survive because their faith is strong enough to overcome any evidence - many do not. I have met some bitter people who left the church because they believe that their religion "lied to them". I hate seeing this when I believe that it is so unnecessary. We as Christians need to be real clear about what is important to our faith and what is not.

---

It is important that you learn what evolution really is and what science really is. It is our considered consensus that you will not be able to learn that from creationist sources. Edited by dwise1, : added link

75%? Really?I suppose it's just possible that Kent Hovind has, at some point in his life, told the truth about something, but I wouldn't bet on this being it.

Well, consider his source, a fundamentalist propaganda film. I haven't asked them (Jeremiah Films) where they got that statistic from, since they'd probably just tell me to buy the video -- I don't even have the stomach anymore to wade through all of Hovind's crap seminars. BTW, if you have the videos he provided on-line about 5 years ago, that quote was in Tape #4 at about 42 minutes and 55 seconds in.Also, we don't know just what do they mean by "reject the Christian faith". Become atheists? Join a different faith? Become mainstream Christians? Just reject "creation science"?It certainly is tempting to hope that the 75% figure is correct. It certainly bolsters the observation (for which I quote Conrad Hyers) that creationism is a major contributor to the spread of atheism:

quote:

---

It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science. Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it.
(Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science, John Knox Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1984, page 26)

---