December 29, 2005

The Earth Isn't Young, Get Over It, Move On

It is almost 2006 and I just can't get over the ignorance of Young Earth Creationists.
They deny overwhelming scientific evidence, just so that they can take the bible literally. The bible is their imagination. They can't handle an allegorical bible.
Of course, these are the same people who can't accept evolution either despite mounds and mounds of evidence.
There is no logic in their belief system. None, zero. Some are proudly ignorant. Some think they know it all. Some admit, faith is the overwhelming factor in their psychosis. But the ones who argue are the ones who really disturb me.
They have no independent peer reviewed scientific data going for them. Their argument is strictly based on semantics, not science. The same dishonest semantic approach can be used to prove the earth is flat, square, or made of chocolate. But it isn't reality.
Who is right about science? Scientists, or the bible or a YEC high school drop out?
I'll go with scientists. And 95%+ scientists around the world know that evolution is fact and know that the earth and universe is billions of years old. And I'm still not sure of the credentials of the other less than 5% who are YEC and anti-evolutionists. Are they political scientists who answered the survey under the pretense they were scientists?
Please note, that believing in an Ancient Earth and Evolution doesn't mean you can't believe in God. 40% of scientists still believe in God.
The Catholics are catching on. They called ID BS recently. They must have scientists in the Vatican who just happen to believe fact and scientific proof.
Even some Evangelical types are now trying to make sense of the reality of science.
Orthodox Jews too, seem to be getting it in most cases.

Here is a very interesting and very telling example of the dishonesty of YEC "scientists" by a geologist who used to believe in a Young Earth:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question. Note ICR is the Institute for Creation Research

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And then there is Keith Miller, the Geology Professor at Kansas State University.
An evangelical evolutionist:
I am very involved at both the state and national levels in the advocacy for quality public science education and public science literacy. Much of my efforts have focused on the historical sciences and particularly evolutionary science. The public "Creation/Evolution" debate has been destructive to both the public understanding of science and to the discussion of important theological issues within the Christian community. The widespread perception of a "warfare of science and faith" is an historically false caricature. Christian theologians and scientists, including evangelicals, since the time of Darwin have seen no necessary conflict between orthodox theology and an evolutionary understanding of the history of life. Modern science is not a threat to Christian faith, and people need not feel forced into a choice between evolution and Creation.

Challenges to modern evolutionary science are often rooted in fundamental misperceptions of the nature of science itself. There is a widespread perception that the focus of science on natural cause-and-effect explanations is a thinly disguised effort to promote a godless worldview, rather than an inherent methodological limitation. Furthermore, many people view "theories" as merely unsubstantiated guesses, rather than as the unifying concepts that give our observations coherence and meaning. Science for many is simply an encyclopedic accumulation of unchanging observational "facts." But science is a dynamic process with the continual construction and revision of theories based on new discoveries. It is that dynamic process which makes science so inherently exciting. Lastly, much of the popular critique of evolutionary theory is based on completely false views of its theoretical content and observational foundation. As educators we need to improve how we teach both the content and methodological foundation of science.

These guys don't bother me in the least. Believe in God if you choose, but don't put your head in the sand when it comes to proven reality.


  1. I gave up 'debating' with my second Creationist today... He constantly asked pointless stupid questions & then point blank refused to believe any facts regarding evolution. When asked about evidence or proof for Creation he basically fell back on the 'God did it' defence and that Creation was 'self evident' so did not require any extra proof.

    At that point I gave up & de-listed him from my favourites. At my age I haven't got the time/energy to waste on people like that.

    Good post BTW.

  2. I think it is a good time to teach. With ID getting the boot, honest Fundies have to be questioning things more than usual. Those who wish to keep their head in the sand will continue to do so though.