Creationist Wisdom #229: Creationism Is Science

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in Star Press of Muncie, Indiana. The letter is titled Creationism and science. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. As we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Okay, here we go:

Exposing public school students to the creationist view of origins doesn’t strike me as being an effort to promote religion. If students are going to be taught about origins, why should they not be given all sides on the issue?

By golly, that’s your Curmudgeon’s position too! Why shouldn’t students be taught our theory that life on Earth was designed by the Blob from Betelgeuse? The letter continues:

Many object that creationism is not science. Since scientific facts and evidence are offered in support of creationism, one cannot rightly claim that creationism is unscientific.

Yes! We see evidence being discussed all the time at creationist websites, so it must be scientific. Let’s read on:

And contrary to common belief, creation science does make predictions, and certain tenets of creationism are testable.

Indeed. Our favorite example is The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism. We continue:

If students are permitted to learn about the fossil record and why it supports creationism rather than evolution, how does that undermine science education?

Great question! Here’s more:

If students are permitted to hear about Einstein’s theory of relativity, which tells us that space, time, matter and energy all have a finite beginning (as the biblical creation account declares), how does that endanger the scientific enterprise?

Another great question! Moving along:

People who reject evolution are often wrongly accused of being anti-science. There are many scientists who reject evolution. Are they anti -science, too? If naturalistic evolution were a clearly established scientific fact, no scientist would reject it.

We could respond by saying that no scientist worthy of that label rejects evolution, but then — when confronted with the dysfunctional behavior of creationists with science degrees — we’d find ourselves ensnared in the No true Scotsman fallacy. We could handle it, but the letter-writer is rather slick. Another excerpt:

According to Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicis [sic] and author, there is a mounting “body of scientific evidence that confirms the accuracy and reliability of the first 11 chapters of the Bible.”

Ah,yes … Hugh Ross. And now we come to the end:

All truth is God’s truth. The Bible reveals truth, and science reveals truth. When correctly interpreted, the Bible and the facts of nature agree. And that’s as it should be, because God is the author of both.

A powerful ending to a powerful letter.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

10 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #229: Creationism Is Science

  1. Tomato Addict

    Today I’m going to track down a science teacher and thank them.

  2. Christine Janis

    I think that people who imagine that the fossil record supports the Noachian flood know nothing more of the fossil record than those big wall charts, where there are no fish past the Devonian, no reptiles past the Cretaceous, and no mammals until the Cenozoic

  3. Exposing public school students to the creationist view of origins doesn’t strike me as being an effort to promote religion.

    There is no non-religious creationist view.

    There are, however, many religious ones. Which one does he believe the government should teach? They are all equally credible. Should teachers pick their favorite one, or should they give equal time to all? I like the cyclic ones best, like the Hindu’s eternal cycle of creation and destruction, although the Buddhist views fit better with real science. (Actually, Buddhists do not have a creation myth, so that would be cheating) The Zoroastrianist story is quite entertaining, with good and evil creative deities. Per wiki, the evil one created noxious pests, among other things, which would solve some of the conundrums in the Christian version.

  4. Ed, I’d just point out that there is more than one “Christian” version.
    Most famous is the 6000-year Young Earth Creationism plus Noah’s Ark version.
    But there are several different Old Earth Creationism versions, depending on whether one takes “one day is a thousand years”, or “indeterminate gaps between the days of creation”, or some who accept billions of years of life on Earth and only object to some features of evolutionary biology.
    Some accept “micro-evolution” within “kinds” (whatever that means).

  5. @TomS: I agree wholeheartedly. Ken Ham seems to think the folks that follow the various day-age and other non-YEC versions are even worse than those who don’t believe creationism at all.

    It would basically be an impossible task to teach creationism, because there is no one form of it. That’s something these letter writers never quite grasp.

  6. “….a mounting “body of scientific evidence that confirms the accuracy and reliability of the first 11 chapters of the Bible.”

    There’s scientific evidence for the existence of Nephilim? I guess I’ll have to go read that link on Hugh Ross, the astrophysicis.

  7. @Ed:

    Thanks for a comment that is sorely needed everywhere, but rarely stated!

    Though I think that many, if not most, prople who have invested enough time and interest in the “debate” to write a letter, are very aware of the hopeless mess of mutually-contradictory, easily falsified origins accounts that is all that evolution-deniers have to show, after 150+ years of cherry-picking evidence, quote-mining and defining terms to suit the argument. The reason that we don’t hear much from fans of Hugh Ross these days, is that, the OECs, and many private accepters of evolution have sold out to the “don’t ask, don’t tell what happened when” scam. Evolution-deniers are far more likely to rave about Michael Behe, yet almost always omit the part of hw Behe accepts not only billions of years of life, but common descent too. But unlike Ross, Behe will never criticize YECs. “Big tent” you know.

  8. The letter-writer asks, “If students are permitted to learn about the fossil record and why it supports creationism rather than evolution…”

    This is a new one to me. How in the world can creationists claim that the fossil record supports creationism? I have always considered the fossil record as being the best evidence of evolution.

    In her post above, Christine Janis alluded to this “creationist wisdom” being on display in certain wall charts. I guess I haven’t been reading the right blogs.

  9. Christine Janis

    @ RetiredSciGuy

    It’s not that the wall charts show “creationist wisdom”, it’s that they reflect the “progressive” view of evolution, starting with fish and ending with Man (and I use that word advisedly) that leads people to think that the fossil record is also organized that way (all fish at the bottom, etc.). That way creationists can imagine that the rock layers reflect the order that animals died and were preserved in the flood (with those smart humans being able to get away to higher ground, and so preserved last)

  10. Thanks, Christine. I honestly couldn’t imagine how creationists could consider the fossil record evidence of creationism. Your explanation of their thought process (using the term loosely) makes it understandable.