Uh, Type 3
is "creation science".
That's the "Two Model Approach" that they were pushing for "balanced treatment" back in the 70's and would still be pushing if they hadn't made it state law in Arkansas and Louisiana around 1981 and thus the courts discovered the religious fraud that they were perpetrating.
That's the "Two Model Approach" upon which creationist writers and debators have based the vast majority of their presentations. Every single presentation I've ever seen, heard, or read by the ICR demigods Gish and H. Morris have started with their "there are two and only two mutually exclusive models for origins, etc".
That's the approach that is virtually the only one taken by creationists -- not surprising, since that is normally the only one that "creation science" had ever taught them. Assume the False Dichotomy that there are two and only two mutually exclusive possibilities and thus you can prove one by disproving the other. Without ever having to present any evidence for the model you're trying to prove. Or even present the model itself.
And so, like their "creation science" teachers, they concentrate solely on attacking science and the false "evolution model" strawman caricature they've been taught and they avoid presenting, supporting, or discussing their "creation model" and any evidence
for that model. In a letter, Henry Morris even insisted that any and all negative evidence against evolution was positive evidence for creation. And as the masters teach, so practice their minions.
Even when they shifted their tactics away from the traditional "two-model" arguments made in the Arkansas and Lousiana laws and embraced the newer false arguments of "intelligent design", they continue to employ the two-model approach, only more stealthily.
We all recently saw a consequence of this approach when creationists were asked to present positive evidence for creation and were unable to do so -- with extremely few takers, the best that any creationist could do was to say that if you look at nature in just the right way then you might be able to think it's the result of design. Creation science has been around since about 1970 and was built upon the work of anti-evolutionists since the end of World War One. And despite the fervent efforts of an army of zealous creationists for almost a century, none of them have found any actual evidence to support their "model". Despite their repeated claims that they have such an abundance of evidence, they end up having none to present -- after a debate featuring Gish and Morris, my creationist friend, clearly distraught, kept muttering "They have so much evidence. Why didn't they present any of it? They have so much evidence ... ".
Also, this "Two Model Approach" backfires on them. By their very own approach and arguments, all it takes to prove that God does not exist (which is what they claim that evolution says, even though that is also a false claim) is to show that the "creation model" is false. Where would we care to start? Young earth? Noah's Flood? Joshua's Long Day? Kinds? Let's face it, "creation science" does a great job of disproving God, such that it's been credited with being the single greatest contributor to the spread of atheism, even to the point of destroying the faith of devout fundamentalist Christians.
As jar points out, this approach of theirs is intellectually bankrupt, dishonest, and, I would add, would be an affront to the "God of Truth" (they do, after all, preach that their god is The Truth, don't they?)
Jar raises a very important question, especially important for creationists. If they really want to prove or at least support their position, then they need to roll up their sleeves and do some honest work. Emphasis on "honest".
™ Version 4.2
