Books By Creationists?

In my own decades of personal experience, basically, yes, really. Though it often plays out as:
Me: There are some factual errors in these claims you made. Here they are along with short explanations as to why they are factually in error.
Cre: WHY DO YOU HATE GOD SO MUCH? WHY ARE YOU DIRECTLY ATTACKING CHRISTIANITY? YOU PATHETIC WORM! YOU ARE GOING TO ROT IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY! BURN! BURN! BURN!!!Seriously, that is almost exactly the kind of hate email that I usually receive from creationists, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one. Really makes you feel that Christian love, don't it?Your first posts on EvC gave me the impression that you have been very sheltered from how most creationists in the English-speaking world have been conducting themselves. We have not be similarly sheltered. There is a difference between creationist claims of supernatural events and creationist claims about the physical evidence. Yes, claims of the supernatural are untestable -- if you disagree with that, then I will invite you to describe just exactly how science can test supernatural claims. However, creationist claims about the physical evidence and about the physical world can be tested, have been tested, and have been shown to be wrong.The supernaturalistic approach required by creationism is untestable, but the empirical predictions that creationism makes are testable. No double standard nor impossible requirements for evidence for creation.

Contradict yourself much?Eg, I became an atheist when I started reading the Bible and found that I couldn't believe any of what I was reading. Since I was proceeding from the assumption that being a Christian required that I belief the Bible (ie, nave biblical literalism), not being able to believe what I was reading in the Bible meant that I could no longer be a Christian. So I left.It wasn't until seven years later that I started reading about evolution. I found it quite interesting and that it made so much sense of what we observe in the physical world. I certainly wasn't latching onto it to support my being an atheist; the previous few years of learning more about history had already indicated that I had made the right choice.Then the "Jesus Freak" movement boomed and I learned a lot about Christian fundamentalism through friends who converted. Everything I learned only re-enforced what history had already indicated to me. That was also my first exposure to creationism and I found the claims I was hearing so ridiculous (especially the ludicrous claim of a NASA computer that had found "Joshua's Long Day") that I paid it no attention.Ten years passed and I was still an atheist and still a big fan of science (and encountered that phrase in the first USA broadcast of a famous radio play -- and answer is "42"), of which evolution was a part but not a vital underpinning for me. And the ICR's travelling snake-oil show rolled into town. I was surprised that they were still at it 10 years later and thought that maybe they were onto something after all. I had duty the night of the show so I missed it, but I started reading about "creation science". Immediately, I found their claims to be false and misleading. I continued to study it and my initial findings were not only affirmed but I started encountering cases of outright deception.Thus began my involvement with "creation science" three decades ago. Yes, I have frequently read creationist books, tracts, and articles, most often because I was researching specific creationist claims. If I am going to discuss a particular claim, shouldn't I reference the source? Though creationists rarely do the same, even though they list those sources in their bibliographies (eg, the infamous moondust claim researched from a "1976" NASA document and which was refuted simply by pulling that 1965 document off the library shelf -- if any of the leading creationists who had used that claim had ever even looked at the document's cover, then they would have known better than to publish that claim).And yet, my work in this "debate" has not been because I felt a need to defend evolution -- though I do very much feel that "creation science" threatens science education; biology is not the only science that it attacks, but also physics. Rather, I am appalled at the gross dishonesty displayed by most creationists. I do not oppose them wanting to oppose evolution, but rather I insist that if they do so then they must do so honestly and truthfully instead of through lies and deception as they have been doing. I am not attacking their faith nor their god, but rather I insist that they abide by the moral and ethical standards that they claim their religion and their god require of them.And, still, "creation science" and my three decades of personal experience with creationists and fundamentalists have only continued to affirm my decision 45 years ago to leave Christianity. As confirmed by the Matthew 7:20 Test .

Uh, not quite. The Scopes trial was meant by the ACLU to be a test case to bring before the US Supreme Court so that it could rule on the constitutionality of the "monkey laws" that forbade for religious reasons the teaching or even the mention of evolution by a teacher. John Scopes was convicted, but the appellate court overturned his conviction purely on a procedural technicality (something about the wrong court official receiving his fine), so that Supreme Court test had to wait another 43 years for Epperson vs Arkansas (1968).While Scopes was actually a victory for the anti-evolution movement (their "monkey laws" and other methods of barring evolution from the public schools held sway for the next four decades), it is perceived by many to have been a defeat for them, because the unfavorable public scrutiny that it brought to bear on the anti-evolutionists ended up shaming them greatly and made them shrink away from the public view.Until Epperson vs Arkansas led to the striking down of the "monkey laws" and led to a revitalization of the anti-evolution movement and its newly-created deception, "creation science."

quote:

---

Well, everybody knows that "agnostic" is just a nice word for "atheist".
(Dr. Duane Gish, prominent co-creator of "creation science", on the Ray Briem radio talk show, c. 1984)

---

Suddenly you don't want to believe what a creationist tells you? Besides, why else be sure to describe Berlinski as "agnostic" if not to emphasize that he's not a theist?Agnosticism has a very definite meaning for me, the idea that we do not know and cannot know about the supernatural, that the supernatural is beyond our ability to examine it. I consider that the only honest position to hold, for both theists and non-theists alike.I also realize, of course, that most others' understanding of agnosticism is hazy and more varied, including equating it with atheism. You would need to clarify your own variety. Precisely. The only thing that is required for atheism is not believing in the gods. You are yet again reading too much in what somebody said. Intellectual fulfillment is not the same thing as being something. Theists have their creation myths with which they seek answers to their questions about where things come from or why they are as they are. Of course atheists do not have creation myths, but they do have knowledge of the real world. As I recall, all that Dawkins was saying was that evolution serves to answer those kinds of questions that atheists may have, not that accepting evolution is a requirement for atheism -- you are the only one I've seen make that claim.If you were trying, as so many other creationists keep doing, to imply that evolution causes people to become atheists, then you would be wrong. Rather, it is creationism that turns people into atheists. Especially children who are raised on creationism, because when they grow up and learn that their religion and religious leaders, even their parents, had been lying to them their entire life, then they will reject that religion. Accepting evolution is not a necessary part of becoming an atheist; rejecting religion is. Yes, many Christian sites warn their readers away from that and other idiotic creationist claims (eg, "then why are there still monkeys?"), but many other sites repeat those idiotic claims. Answers in Genesis (AiG) also had a page in Nov 2002 listing claims that creationists should not use and followed up by defending that page, citing the same problems that I do (and for which I'm denounced as a "God-hater"), that using false claims only defeats the creationists' cause -- they keep reorganizing their site, making it difficult to find everything, assuming it's even still up. AiG also repeated a lesser-known claim that I consider to be even dumber than the "Lost Day": the claim that those atheistic scientists believe that the ancient Egyptians were still little more than "ape-men". One laudable page does not necessarily make for an honest and truthful site. CMI's entire site would need to be examined.

Whom are you addressing? We have no way of telling unless you reply by clicking the Reply button, in which case your reply will indicate the message you are replying to and hence also to whom.Basic common courtesy.

And just what is the definition for consistent atheist? You appear to make that completely dependent on whether said atheist accepts evolution. Why?Fred Hoyle was an atheist and was also anti-evolution. Would you call him "inconsistent"? Consider again the case of someone who was raised a creationist and becomes an atheist after learning he had been lied to all his life by his religion, religious leaders, parents. He is an atheist because he rejects religion and the gods, but he is far more interested in repairing the emotional damage done him by his religion than in evolution. Would you consider him "inconsistent" as well? Why?What are your definitions for "consistent atheist" and "inconsistent atheist"? Besides the mysterious "inconsistent atheist" term, you're at least returning to what Dawkins was talking about. Because in that quote you indirectly referenced (and probably had never read yourself) he wasn't talking about atheists being required to "believe in" evolution.The actual quote is on page 6 of The Blind Watchmaker. Since the book title was taken from Paley's watchmaker analogy, Dawkins introduced and discussed it. On page 5 (paraphrasing, because my access is to an image of those pages), he even says that, in terms of feeling awe at nature, he feels closer to Paley than to a distinguished modern atheist philosopher with whom he once discussed the matter over dinner. Dawkins expressed doubt that he could have been an atheist before On The Origin of Species:

quote:

---

"What about Hume?", replied the philosopher. "How did Hume explain the organized complexity of the living world?", I asked. "He didn't", said the philosopher. "Why does it need any special explanation?"

​

Paley knew it needed a special explanation; Darwin knew it, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts my philosopher companion knew it too. In any case, it will be my business to show it here.

---

Dawkins then points out that while David Hume had disposed of Argument from Design as positive evidence for the existence of God, he also did not offer any alternative, leaving the question open.There is the context. Now here's the actual quote from page 6:

quote:

---

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

---

So Dawkins did not state that evolution is a requirement for being an atheist, but rather that evolution does provide an alternative explanation for complex biological design, and a damned good one at that. Nor does that mean that an atheist has to accept that particular explanation. He could hold out for what he feels might be a better explanation that's yet to be discovered. He could even actively reject and oppose evolution. Just because there is an explanation does not mean that everybody will accept it.And what about those atheists who simply do not ask the questions that evolution can answer? I know that that is hard for us to contemplate, since it is so foreign to our own mind-sets as students and fans of science. When I see something, I want to know how it works, but for many people, when they see something they just want to know what it can do for them, how to use it, and how much it costs. Oh, and how cool it is or isn't. The atheists among them will be more likely to be the apathetic types who just aren't interested in religion or philosophy or any of the big questions -- unless they're presented to them as entertainment with cool special effects added.So, slevesque, just where did you get that "requirement" from? Certainly not from Dawkins, unless you can produce another quote (properly cited, please) to that effect.But I can't help but wonder what a theist would need to be a "intellectually fulfilled theist." After all, the answer that they are given to Paley's big question really isn't much of an answer, now is it? "God did it!" OK, but what does that tell us about what we do find in nature. "goddiddit" Yes, you already said that, but how did He do it? "goddiddit" You keep saying that, but what does it mean? What does it tell us about nature? "goddiddit" "goddiddit" "goddiddit" "goddiddit" "goddiddit""goddiddit" isn't an answer; it's just a place holder. That God created everything and set everything up to operate the way that it does is a given for a Judeo-Christian-Islamic theist, but it still doesn't tell us anything about nature nor about how nature operates. "goddiddit" is not intellectually fulfilling.Isn't it also true that an actual explanation is needed for a theist to also be intellectually fulfilled? An actual explanation like evolution?

But an atheist who does not accept evolution is just as consistently an atheist as one who does accept it. Atheism is defined by not believing in the gods; acceptance of any of various scientific ideas is a side-issue. First, nobody can have a complete world view. Everybody's world view will have holes in it.Second, you say you "did not say a atheist had to believe in evolution."? Au contraire! Message 57
Message 64
Message 78
And third, in seeking possible answers to how the universe, life, etc, have come to be as they are, it is true that supernaturalistic explanations would not be open to consistent atheists (though could be to inconsistent atheists). So an atheist would be left with naturalistic explanations. The best source for him to draw from would be the natural sciences, in which evolution is currently the best explanation for life being as we find it. Of course, something else could replace it in the future, which would render your statement false. No, it is not a non-answer. Hume's answer was that Argument from Design was not positive evidence for the existence of God. That is not by any measure a non-answer! All that was lacking was an alternative. But since when was demonstrating something wrong negated by not also demonstrating the right answer? So then how does Christianity explain the fossil record, including its order? How does Christianity explain any of the myriad ecosystems we find? How does Christianity explain how the sun "burns"? How does Christianity the universe?We already know that answer, don't we? goddiddit! goddiddit! goddiddit! goddiddit!You only think that it completes your worldview because you allow yourself to become like those others: "those who don't think a lot have no problem living with an incomplete worldview." You have forgotten to keep asking the questions. You have stopped wondering how God did it, substituting it with goddiddit instead.from Message 57
I read several years ago what Berlinski had to say. His skepticism is not because of the evidence, but rather because of his own misunderstanding of evolution. To evaluate something from the evidence, you must first know something about that which you are evaluating. If you misunderstand evolution, then of course the evidence will disprove, not evolution, but rather your own misunderstanding of evolution. To give a very crude example, if you thought that evolution meant that there would be no more monkeys after Man evolved, then the continued existence of monkeys would lead you to say that evolution is wrong.As I have been telling creationists for decades: if you want to oppose evolution, then do so. But address evolution itself, not the distorted misrepresentation taught to you by "creation science".Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "msg" changed to "mid" in message link code in quote box.

Let me describe an all-too-common experience that I and many others have had, but from which you as a professing Christian and creationist would have been spared. While "creation science" started out as a deliberate deception to circumvent the court system in the wake of the striking down of the "monkey laws", its false claim of having scientific evidences for creation has led to it spreading out into other uses * such that it now permeates fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative Christianity.

{* FOOTNOTE:

Other uses such as:
1. to be used personally by creationists to "disprove" those parts of science that they don't like or are afraid of,
2. to "protect" their children from the harmful effects of "atheistic science" (even though that ends up causing about 80% of those children to leave the faith, often to become atheists, when they learn the truth),
3. to provide "ammo" in their efforts to proselytize to non-believers.

}

It is that third item in the footnote of which I speak. Over and over again we have seen creationists enter into a forum or email discussion professing an open-minded search for the truth, only to end up demonstrating that their only purpose is to convert us. We've seen that so many times that we can smell it coming from a mile away even if we have the severest possible head cold. I am not accusing you of that; from what I have seen of you here, that is not what you are trying to do. But your statement that I quoted alludes to a very common tactic/argument that they use.That common tactic is to inundate their intended victim with "unanswerable" questions, such as Dr Adequate's "growth of an oak tree from an acorn" (in Message 140) or a creationist favorite of describing in complete detail the evolution of bacteria into blue whales. If the victim is able to cogently respond to one question, the creationist just hits him with another one, and another and another, until he has worn his victim down. Whereupon the victim asks what the creationist's answer to those questions are and the creationist responds: Jesus Christ is the answer. Just as you yourself just told us. Which is the non-answer of goddiddit.Not that "Jesus Christ" is always a non-answer; that depends entirely on the question. As Brother Orson Scott Card taught in his Secular Humanist Revival Meeting, speaking "as one who loves the Bible better than his best friend": "The Bible does not contain any answers ... until you ask the question!" Or as Douglas Adams taught us after revealing that the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42: "Now you know the answer ... all you need to do now is find out what the Ultimate Question is."Answers are meaningless outside the context of their questions. The question that you expect atheists to answer is explaining how the natural world is as we find it to be. The best answer is to accept the system and body of knowledge of the human endeavor that has the best track record for learning about the natural universe: science. Not just evolution, mind you, but science, which includes evolution as its current best explanation of biodiversity and of what we know of the history of life on earth. That is a meaningful answer to that question.However, your answer to that same question is "Jesus Christ". Which to this question is just goddiddit, a non-answer, indeed one of the worst non-answers possible. However, if the question were about Man's relationship with God, the "Jesus Christ" would be a very appropriate answer. But if you were to pose that same question to an atheist, his very appropriate answer would be that the entire question is moot, since God doesn't exist.Remember again, the question that Dawkins was writing about that Darwin provided an answer to was how to explain biodiversity. Evolution is a proper answer to that question, whereas goddiddit is not. Before you go comparing answers, you need to ensure that the questions remain constant.Other examples of goddiddit apply to physics. How do the planets move? The goddiddit answer that we used to use was that angels move them. How do bullets and cannonballs move to their targets? The goddiddit answer that we used to use was that each bullet had a devil or demon riding on it that directed its motion. But now, through science, we know about universal gravitation, astrodynamics, and ballistics. The answer to those questions could not be found in goddiddit, but rather in science.But science cannot answer all forms of questions. Religious questions, especially the most fundamental one, "How then are we to live our lives?", do not lend themselves to the scientific method. Those questions are much more the domain of philosophy and/or theology.To be intellectually fulfilled, one needs to be able to deal with all forms of questions. Theists also need to deal with scientific questions that arise, as atheists need to deal with philosophical, moral, and ethical questions that arise.