Creationism and the Presidency

Backgrounder on Creationism

Creationism is its pure form is the belief that the word was created about 10,000 years ago and the fossil record exists only because of the great flood during Noah's era. The question that I would personally like to have answered is whether the President of the United States is, or is not, a subscriber to this notion. In an age of scientific discoveries and daily breakthroughs can we afford to have leaders who think that scientific method itself is a hoax? This particular webpage tries to examine the issue and includes some of the primary pro-creationist information. Let's start there.

The reason that "evolution is bullshit" is outlined here on the Creationism website. The site needs work, seems to me, but a reasonable introduction for the uninitiated.

Next you want to read the popular counter-arguments done in FAQ format.

The FAQ du jour, at least according to some observers, is the wholly unreadable Mark Isaak's FAQ, now considered the best of the bunch. Although highly regarded I personally find the Isaak tome to be anything but a FAQ.

It seems to stem from the grand dad of the anti-creationist FAQs: the fabled Meritt FAQ.

This comment struck me immediately.

"Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral."

Besides the odd phrase "its own problems" as if evolution is seriously flawed, the overall logic eludes me. Most creationists are into this because they do not know any better, are uneducated or overly faithful. And creationism is obviously founded on biblical interpretation that is not wholly unreasonable if you believe that the Bible is an historical document written by God through his agents. If you believe that, then where does bigotry come into the picture? The anti-creationists, instead of using science are themselves, it seems to me, the bigots.

The Meritt FAQ is also written defensively with a lot of ALL CAPS and repetitive wordage such as:

"Dating of ancient rocks by radiometric methods (e.g., Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium- Strontium) does NOT, repeat NOT depend upon our having available a sample of known age to calibrate the method. Indeed, this is PRECISELY WHY these methods are so useful. The only calibration required is the measurement of decay rates, which can be done IN THE LABORATORY. Furthermore, these methods can be used in ways that do NOT, repeat NOT depend on any assumptions about the initial amounts of the various isotopes involved."

How about this: the FAQ SUCKS, repeat, SUCKS because it cannot REMAIN, repeat REMAIN objective. Repeat OBJECTIVE. No wonder the creationists roll right past this stuff with glib confidence. REPEAT CONFIDENCE.

One of the problems you spot immediately when you review the literature is that the anti-creationists are taking the creationists too seriously and playing on their turf. The turf of superstition. Most scientists ignore these creationists altogether and move along as if the creationists are merely nutjobs, crazy. The anti-creationists actually lend the creationists credibility. REPEAT, CREDIBILITY. It makes you wonder about both these crowds. I often wonder if many of the anti-creationists are actually creationists in costume making creationism look good by comparison. This trick has been done before.

That said, if you like the FAQ or quasi-FAQ style of exposition you are better off reading the excellent Mark I. Valetic piece called Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution versus Creationism.

Personally most people would find the slick discussion done by the National Academy of Sciences to be the most succinct regarding the debate itself.

But as far as I'm concerned this is not debatable in the 21-century. The world cannot have been created 6000-10,000 years ago as is the belief of the creationists. Did dinosaur's exist 10,000 years ago? Or did they never exist and the world is some sort of weird hoax? There are a number of creationists who insist that dinosaurs were around with people and only died off a few years ago.

While I think it's OK for people to have these superstitious beliefs in the privacy of their own home, I don't want this agenda in my face. It's becoming too high-profile.

Take it leave it links

http://skepdic.com/creation.html

And here is a very fine essay on the debate everyone should read

Ministries to promotion Creationism include

The ICR - the Institute of Creation Research, You can ever get a degree from these folks. This may be the primary source of creationist promotion. Their next project appears to be something called Good Science on the Web.

The ICR site is pretty insular. If you want a good set of pro-creationist links then go to the Scientific Creationism Website here. Lots of good reading. The problem you have here is the same as with the anti-creationists making bigoted assumptions. In this odd essay about the creation of matter the writer rambles on about how many (if not most) evolutionists believe that matter existed eternally. Since most scientists have no clue what existed before the big bang I have trouble understanding where this person even gets this notion.

Dvorak Uncensored: Special Inquiry

Mixing Politics & Religion because nobody else wants to do it.

BACK TO DVORAK UNCENSORED

	Creationism is its pure form is the belief that the word was created about 10,000 years ago and the fossil record exists only because of the great flood during Noah's era. The question that I would personally like to have answered is whether the President of the United States is, or is not, a subscriber to this notion. In an age of scientific discoveries and daily breakthroughs can we afford to have leaders who think that scientific method itself is a hoax? This particular webpage tries to examine the issue and includes some of the primary pro-creationist information. Let's start there. The reason that "evolution is bullshit" is outlined here on the Creationism website. The site needs work, seems to me, but a reasonable introduction for the uninitiated. Next you want to read the popular counter-arguments done in FAQ format. The FAQ du jour, at least according to some observers, is the wholly unreadable Mark Isaak's FAQ, now considered the best of the bunch. Although highly regarded I personally find the Isaak tome to be anything but a FAQ. It seems to stem from the grand dad of the anti-creationist FAQs: the fabled Meritt FAQ. This comment struck me immediately. "Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral." Besides the odd phrase "its own problems" as if evolution is seriously flawed, the overall logic eludes me. Most creationists are into this because they do not know any better, are uneducated or overly faithful. And creationism is obviously founded on biblical interpretation that is not wholly unreasonable if you believe that the Bible is an historical document written by God through his agents. If you believe that, then where does bigotry come into the picture? The anti-creationists, instead of using science are themselves, it seems to me, the bigots. The Meritt FAQ is also written defensively with a lot of ALL CAPS and repetitive wordage such as: "Dating of ancient rocks by radiometric methods (e.g., Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium- Strontium) does NOT, repeat NOT depend upon our having available a sample of known age to calibrate the method. Indeed, this is PRECISELY WHY these methods are so useful. The only calibration required is the measurement of decay rates, which can be done IN THE LABORATORY. Furthermore, these methods can be used in ways that do NOT, repeat NOT depend on any assumptions about the initial amounts of the various isotopes involved." How about this: the FAQ SUCKS, repeat, SUCKS because it cannot REMAIN, repeat REMAIN objective. Repeat OBJECTIVE. No wonder the creationists roll right past this stuff with glib confidence. REPEAT CONFIDENCE. One of the problems you spot immediately when you review the literature is that the anti-creationists are taking the creationists too seriously and playing on their turf. The turf of superstition. Most scientists ignore these creationists altogether and move along as if the creationists are merely nutjobs, crazy. The anti-creationists actually lend the creationists credibility. REPEAT, CREDIBILITY. It makes you wonder about both these crowds. I often wonder if many of the anti-creationists are actually creationists in costume making creationism look good by comparison. This trick has been done before. That said, if you like the FAQ or quasi-FAQ style of exposition you are better off reading the excellent Mark I. Valetic piece called Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution versus Creationism. Personally most people would find the slick discussion done by the National Academy of Sciences to be the most succinct regarding the debate itself. But as far as I'm concerned this is not debatable in the 21-century. The world cannot have been created 6000-10,000 years ago as is the belief of the creationists. Did dinosaur's exist 10,000 years ago? Or did they never exist and the world is some sort of weird hoax? There are a number of creationists who insist that dinosaurs were around with people and only died off a few years ago. While I think it's OK for people to have these superstitious beliefs in the privacy of their own home, I don't want this agenda in my face. It's becoming too high-profile. Take it leave it links http://skepdic.com/creation.html And here is a very fine essay on the debate everyone should read Ministries to promotion Creationism include The ICR - the Institute of Creation Research, You can ever get a degree from these folks. This may be the primary source of creationist promotion. Their next project appears to be something called Good Science on the Web. The ICR site is pretty insular. If you want a good set of pro-creationist links then go to the Scientific Creationism Website here. Lots of good reading. The problem you have here is the same as with the anti-creationists making bigoted assumptions. In this odd essay about the creation of matter the writer rambles on about how many (if not most) evolutionists believe that matter existed eternally. Since most scientists have no clue what existed before the big bang I have trouble understanding where this person even gets this notion.	Dvorak Uncensored: Special Inquiry Mixing Politics & Religion because nobody else wants to do it.
	BACK TO DVORAK UNCENSORED