Creationist Wisdom #494: Teach Both Faiths

This is your lucky day, dear reader. We have a second letter-to-the-editor for you. This one appears in the Peninsula Clarion of Kenai, Alaska. It’s titled Creationism should be part of curriculum. There’s a comments section at the end with only one comment so far.

Today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, so we won’t use his (or her) full name. The writer’s first name is somewhat notable — Jubilee. Excerpts from Jubilee’s letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

In today’s public schools, children are daily being taught that the theory of evolution is fact when in reality, evolution is an unproven theory. Science professors and teachers, in contrast to the way they present evolution, depict creationism as a faith-based view.

Aaaargh!! All theories are unproven, albeit strongly supported by the available evidence. And as for creationism — well, you know. Okay, it’s rather obvious what we’re dealing with, so relax and enjoy the rest of it. Jubilee says:

What students are not being taught is that both evolutionism and creationism are faith-based, and neither can be proven by science.

Evolutionism? Why the double suffix? Does that put the theory in grave danger? Two can play that game. [*Curmudgeon digs into his sack of suffixes*] How about calling creationism creationism-ish-ness? Yeah, we like that. Let’s read on:

By definition, science is the study of the universe based on observations. It is impossible to observe evolution or creation since both would have had to occur in the past. Therefore, neither can be proven by science, and both fall into the realm of matters that are accepted by faith.

We’ve seen that before. But the past leaves clues and it can be known — see The Lessons of Tiktaalik. Jubilee continues:

Even many evolutionists know and admit that their theory is completely based on faith. Noted evolutionary scientists have stated that “The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief” and that “In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” Perhaps this quote from Dr. George Wald, a biology professor at the University at Harvard, is the most striking:

We won’t bother with Jubilee’s Wald “quote.” It’s totally debunked as #57 in TalkOrigins’s Quote Mine Project. There’s not much left of Jubilee’s letter. This is the last of it:

If creationism is not allowed in public schools because it is faith-based, neither should evolutionism be allowed in public schools, for it is also faith-based. Since evolutionists can impose their beliefs on students, why can’t creationists teach theirs?

Great letter, Jubilee! You’re a fantastic advocate of creationism-ish-ness.

Copyright © 2014. 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

17 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #494: Teach Both Faiths

  1. The more they are put down with facts, the more desperate they sound, and the sillier their arguments.

  2. You’re a fantastic advocate of creationism-ish-ness.

    I wrote an article several years ago where I introduced and explained some terminology and acronyms which I use in order to recognize some very nuanced distinctions which are essential to the academic study of young earth creationism. One of them is the difference between a YEC and a YECist, or if you will, the average young earth creationist who happens to hold to that set of young earth and global flood beliefs as just another distinction of his version of Christianity versus the dedicated YECism activist/promoter/fan who holds to whatever the various “creation science” origins ministries are promoting. Thus, a YECist will probably claim that Noah’s Flood was accompanied by, or associated with in some cause-and-effect way, the Great Ice Age. In contrast, the average YEC may have never heard of such an association, and may even be puzzled by it, because he knows that the Bible says nothing about an ice age.

    Anyone who has spent much time at YECist websites like AiG and Creation.com will start to notice quite a number of “factoids” treated as if they are important Bible doctrines even though they have just as little scriptural evidence support as they do scientific evidence: zero. Yet this phases not the dedicated YECist! Perhaps someday I will publish my weighty tome on the “evolution” of YECism and how it shares similar characteristics with Roman Catholicism in the way it often places equal weight of authority on its traditions (and “Early Church Fathers” aka Morris, Whitcomb, Gish, the holy trinity of early YECdom) as on its texts. That is, because it has become “traditional” for YECists to claim that “The Great Flood” was tied to “The Deep Freeze”, should YECism survive a few more generations, perhaps an obscure and bookish Hamite will some day nail to the front doors of the Creation Museum his “95 Theses” (which, I predict, more devoted Hamite monks of that time will dub the “95 Feces”) and usher in the Great Reformation of YECdom.

    Eventually I hope to dig out that article on “YECism’s YECists and the YECers who love them” as part of my “I was a Teen-aged YEC” series on Professor Tertius’ blog at https://bibleandscienceforum.wordpress.com/

  3. And here we go again. The comments from the supporter of Jubilee is busy trying to debunk the ToE by using philosophy rather than science. Philosophy may tell us if a particular way of gathering knowledge is valid, but at some point we have to leave the philosophy behind and dive into making predictions about the results of test and testing what we can observe.

    Trying to devalue materialism by reducing it to the level of belief certainly does no favour to theism which is nothing but belief.

  4. Perhaps the gulf between YECists and YECers will eventually become so great that I’ll finally be able to cash in on the YECist problem by offering Professor Tertius’ YECist Deprogramming $ervices. (Popularly know in the biz as “de-YECing”. It will be price-tiered, depending on whether families want their loved one just dialed down a bit by removing only the YECist Ham-isms or if they want to buy the whole YEC-sanitizing/elimination package. The latter is more controversial because of the shock treatments.)

    Yes, if concerned YEC parents find copies of “Answers” periodicals and books in junior’s room along with a huge poster of Ken Sham on his bedroom wall, mom and dad may look at one another worriedly and exclaim, “He’s a Hamite!” They will ask Junior straight out if that weekend, when he was supposed to be at Six Flags with his friends, he was actually attending a “Creation Science” weekend at the Biola University campus.

    I’m tired of the YECists making all of the money in the “creation-evolution debate.” It’s not fair that the profits are inversely proportional to the intelligence of the origins entrepreneurs.

  5. Professor Tertius discusses: “the difference between a YEC and a YECist”

    I’ve been referring to them as the professional creationists and the walking-around drooling creationists.

  6. Even many evolutionists know and admit that their theory is completely based on faith. Noted evolutionary scientists have stated that “The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief” and that “In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” Perhaps this quote from Dr. George Wald, a biology professor at the University at Harvard, is the most striking:

    Whatever happened to the commandments against lying and bearing false witness, Jube? Don’t they count anymore if the objective of a lie is to undermine “evolutionism”?

  7. Jubilee is clearly a devoted follower of Hambo and uses all of AIG’s absurd assertions about the Theory of Evolution being some kind of religion rather than the real science that it is.

  8. “since both would have had to occur in the past.”
    Jubilee’s birth also would have had to occur in the past. So it’s an unproven theory as well.

  9. It is impossible to observe evolution or creation since both would have had to occur in the past.
    evolution is an unproven theory.
    both faiths

    1)There is more than one creationism. Why discriminate against Jubilee’s version of creationism, when there are all those others? Be sure to teach the “I don’t know” version of “Intelligent Design”, and the several different ages – Young Earth, Gap, Long-Day, the Jehovah Witnesses’, Michael Behe’s and the Pope’s belief.
    2) Evolution is a process that occurs today and doesn’t need “proof” – one can just observe it happening.
    3) It isn’t only things in the past which we cannot observe and which we would not know about, if it weren’t for science – the center of the Earth, ultraviolet light, electrons and holes in semiconductors.

  10. Charles Deetz ;)

    The continual chutzpah of these folks redefining what science is, or more specifically trying to explain what they have been told science is. Then, like in the Ham/Nye debate, when we actually play by their definition and use ‘observational’ science, they still don’t accept it. Then they start making [deleted] up and lying as Eric Lipps calls Jubilee out for.

  11. Gibberlee gasps—

    “It is impossible to observe evolution or creation since both would have had to occur in the past.”

    And this, as downright and demonstrably wrong as it is, makes up the new core of cretinists’ conceit: One belief is as valid as any other. No doubt, this new quasi-accommodationist take is the result of repeated humiliating failures to debunk evolution.

    The past is not inaccessible to us simply because we weren’t around to observe it. If that was so, much knowledge would be impossible, including most human and natural history, and we would have to take such things on faith alone. As TomS points out, evolutionary processes are directly observable today. Not so creation, which invokes much vague hand waving and an opportune “Abracadabra, shazam!” as and when needed. It’s nothing more than a feel-good fairytale that lacks any useful explanatory power.

    But what truly smacks my gob about this position is its obvious postmodernism. You’d think that the last thing someone with a vested interest in peddling The Eternal and Immutable Truth™ would do is to assume a postmodern standpoint. Besides its intrinsically self-defeating nature, it goes one further in that if no knowledge claim can be considered superior to any other, the inevitable upshot is a retreat into Pyrrhonism, another position that is squarely at odds with faith-based “knowledge”.

  12. It can be hard to explain things. And I think that most people would rather not. And it’s pointless for us to insist that others have got to show interest. Most people are perfectly happy to send the monthly check and let others take care of the details.
    But when people intrude on us who have some interest in how things come to be, and tell us how we’ve got it all wrong, then they should expect some reaction. If we’ve got it all wrong, then what is it that happens, when, where, how, why, so that things turn out this way, among the infinity of possibilities?
    There are people who are so nervy as to say that nobody knows, so their answer is as good as ours. Even though they don’t have an answer, because they aren’t interested in an answer. It’s just that they don’t like our answer. Maybe they don’t like it that we have an answer, and think that we’re wrong to have any interest in having an answer.

  13. Regarding: “By definition, science is the study of the universe based on observations. It is impossible to observe evolution or creation since both would have had to occur in the past. Therefore, neither can be proven by science, and both fall into the realm of matters that are accepted by faith.”

    Why is it that morons who have no understanding of the way things work have strong opinions on the way things work. Even if his contention were true, we have been paying a great deal of attention to and observing nature since Darwin’s publication in the mid 1800’s. Since then we have observed a great many examples of evolution taking place in real time. To these we add all of the indirect information and the case for the validity of evolutionary theory is very, very strong.

    Basically, this idiotic argument is the equivalent of the United States is a myth. It was created in the past … were you there? You didn’t observe its creation, did you?

  14. I’ve been referring to them as the professional creationists and the walking-around drooling creationists.

    What can get tricky for the amateur taxonomist is the fact that, in their natural habitat, the professional creationist will often drool in order to better prey upon (and pray upon) the walking-around drooling creationists. And if things weren’t complicated enough, the Discoveroids are in the process of speciating—as many of the pure-bred Cincinnati YECers refuse to pair-bond with the Seattle Discoveroids. (The bright colors and the lack of KJV-song-patterns are believed responsible.) The David Attenborough documentary about this may be on Youtube by now. The title is something like Dumbing Down with the Discoveroids: Were You There?” You can catch it on the Discovery Channel at least once a year as part of the ratings-grabbing “YEC Week”.

  15. Say what you will, SteveR, but Belgium doesn’t exist indeed.

    http://zapatopi.net/belgium/

    This is what happens when you travel from The Netherlands to France:

    http://zapatopi.net/blog/?post=201311106650.crossing_the_border_to_belgium

  16. One thing that Idiots/creationists and lay people have a hard time with is the concept of scientific theories. I realize this isn’t the standard definition of “theory”, but a scientific theory is both fact and theory. It’s all about observation vs. mechanism. We observe, for example, both gravity and evolution as fact. However, there are competing and alternate mechanisms of how these FACTS materialize in the real world.

    Aghgh, I sometimes wish scientists a few hundred years ago would have used different language in explaining natural phenomenon, but then again if you’re honestly looking at the data it shouldn’t be that hard to understand.