Sis years ago, based on our vast experience, we posted How To Write a Creation Science Paper. Now we have a “how to write” article written by and for creationists.
It’s at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Their title is Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution, and it has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Every school year, students wanting to do a paper on “Creation vs. Evolution” contact Answers in Genesis for our advice and insights. [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] We think it’s great that so many young people are interested in writing on this topic, and we want to provide some helpful guidelines on how to approach the writing on this topic.
This should be good! AIG says:
When writing a paper, try always to follow the instructions given by your school or teacher, including sticking to the topic you were assigned. [Hey — that’s good advice!] For example, if your set topic is antibiotics, then it would be worth explaining antibiotic resistance. Then, you can explain why this is not an example of particles-to-people evolution since no new information is ever generated. [Hee hee!] It would not be appropriate, however, to discuss religion vs. science or the age of the earth in such an essay.
Stay with us, it gets better. AIG tells us:
If you have a report about rock formations, it is perfectly suited to discuss evidence of catastrophic formation of the rocks, but not for talking about the evolutionary basis of Nazism. [Aaaargh!!] It is essential to stay focused on the subject and on what you want to convey.
Amazing, isn’t it? They continue:
When writing your paper, do not state that “evolution is just a theory.” This is because the meaning of the word “theory” to you is not the same as its meaning to the evolutionist. To the layman, a “theory” is a guess or a postulation. To a scientist, a “theory” means a well-substantiated explanation of data. Calling evolution a “theory” gives it far too much scientific credit.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! They explain that further:
The evolution conjecture [Hee hee!] should not be called a “theory.” This gives it unwarranted respectability by association with real theories like that of Relativity, Newton’s Theory of Gravity, the Debye-Hückel theory of electrolytes, etc. All these theories have strong experimental support (although Newton’s theory has been augmented by Einstein’s). In contrast, evolution of life from non-living matter and from one basic type of organism to a different type has not the slightest experimental/observational support. At Answers in Genesis, we have published several articles about evolution [Link omitted.] that will help you know what to say when referring to this term.
Evolution has “not the slightest experimental/observational support.” Be sure to mention that in your paper, kiddies! Let’s read on:
Depending on your class and teacher, you may be expected to write about what you’ve been taught in class. The same thing can be said for examinations. You are being tested on your knowledge of the course. Please be aware that these are not appropriate times to “preach.”
Wow — that’s actually good. They expand on that advice:
For example, if you are asked “how old is the Earth?” then the (correct!) answer of ~6000 years [Hee hee!] will almost certainly be marked wrong because the course most likely would have stated ~4.5 billion years. To avoid lying, we recommend prefixing your answer by saying, “Most scientists believe that. . . ” or “The general consensus among geochronologists is. . . ” Remember, an exam is not a test of your personal beliefs. Instead, it is a test of how well you have learned and understood the material of the course as taught.
Isn’t this great? Here’s another excerpt:
When you write a paper to argue a point, try to anticipate possible responses. For example, if you say, “There are no transitional forms,” then your teacher may downgrade you and say, “Haven’t you heard of Archaeopteryx and Lucy?” While these examples are not convincing when looked at in-depth [Hee hee!], it would still be better to say, “While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of questionable examples.”
Yeah, only a handful — but see Wikipedia’s List of transitional fossils. Here’s more advice from AIG:
Or if you say, “There are no beneficial mutations,” your teacher may suggest, however inappropriately, sickle-cell anemia or wingless beetles as examples of mutations that can be beneficial to the organism. It would be better if you say, “Mutations have been observed to destroy, delete or corrupt genetic information or to be neutral, but have not been observed to add information.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! But see Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. This is our last excerpt:
When writing a paper on creation science, do your homework thoroughly and ensure you use the most up-to-date research. [In Genesis?] Familiarize yourself with the best creation science has to offer, and do not use these doubtful arguments. [AIG’s list of embarrassing clunkers.] Because you are discussing creation science, you will be held to a higher standard, and you want to be sure to represent Christ in excellence.
The rest of their article is a long list of links to AIG articles, so the kiddies can have access to the latest creation science. We have no doubt that creationist kiddies will be wildly copying that stuff and handing it in as their own work. Hey — you don’t think AIG provided those links for exactly that purpose, do you? No, of course not! And we’re sure that the kiddies will give appropriate credit to AIG by footnoting their homework papers. Creationists are always intellectually honest.
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.