ANTI-CREATIONIST MYTHS THAT KEEP RETURNING

This is lifted whole hog from the Dr. Dino creation evangelism page. Go over

there and read a lot more good stuff!

ANTI-CREATIONIST MYTHS THAT KEEP RETURNING

• Written by: Paul Taylor
• Tags: God & the Bible, Question & Answer
• Difficulty: Beginner

Our Facebook page recently contained a number of common challenges to the creation position. These sorts of questions are mostly copied and pasted from other forums, as the people who ask such questions are generally not interested in a logical response.

Nevertheless, it might be instructive to include these as part of an article, in order to demonstrate that all such questions have a logical response.

Why are “99%” of the public figures, speakers, evangelists of the Young Earth Movement white males? Where are the women? Where are the Asians, African Americans, etc.?

99% of all statistics are made up on the spur of the moment. That is the case with this statistic. A majority of any public figures or speakers, Christian or otherwise, appear to be white and male.

However, there are both women and African Americans who speak on this issue. Georgia Purdom, Sylvia Baker and Nancy Darrell are three women who spring to mind. Charles Ware and Voddie Baucham would be two African Americans who frequently address this issue.

Why do all Biblical Literalists with science training testify they became a Literalist before their “science” confirmed their position? For example, why are no Young Earth geologists stating, “I came to believe in a young Earth because my data kept returning an age of less than 10,000 years but I didn’t change my religious position until later”? In other words, why does the religious conversion always occur before the “science”?

This is not my experience. A large number of people often tell me that they first became convinced of creation through their studies, and then were saved later. I have not done a survey to determine percentages. But the premise of the above question is not correct.

Why don’t Young Earth Creationist websites (e.g. AIG, ICR) provide links to mainstream museums, science publications or general science knowledge?

Why should they? They don’t link to ours! Evolutionary museums are well-known and easy to find. A link from our website to such an institution could imply and endorsement of their beliefs.

Why are the major Young Earth Creationist organizations (ICR, AIG) based in the United States of America?

This is incorrect. This question simply reveals an America-centric bias of the questioner, not of creationists. The world’s two largest creationist organizations both began in Australia. The world’s oldest creationist organization was founded and is based in England. The UK has a large number of creationist ministries, as do Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, several other European countries, South Africa, India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And I could go on!

Why is there no attempt at discovering the actual process of Creation by followers of Creation Science? Does this reluctance make the phrase Creation Science an oxymoron?

This is incorrect. Read the various peer-reviewed scientific journals within creationism, such as the Journal of Creation (www.creation.com), the Answers Research Journal(www.answersingenesis.org) or the Creation Research Society Quarterly(www.creationresearch.org). When listing these on forums in the past, I have sometimes had the reply that these are not “real” peer-reviewed scientific journals. This is, of course, an illogical statement, falling foul of the so-called “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy.

Why do those Young Earth Creationist organizations which claim to be applying science (ICR, AIG) demand members sign contracts with the (sic) clauses like, “By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

That is because these are faith-based organizations, and it is to prevent entryism. Yet if anyone found such scientific evidence, you can be sure that someone would hear about it. The statement is also self-evident, because no actual knowledge is possible without this presupposition. This was recognized by earlier scientists of the modern era, such as Kepler, Newton, Lister, Boyle, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, etc.

It will also be noted that secular peer-reviewed journals have a similar presupposition against the existence of God. They do not refer to it as a presupposition, but rather as a convention. It is not only creationists who have been unable to publish in secular peer-reviewed scientific journals, because of the journals’ bias. Similar problems have also been encountered, for example, by so-called Climate Change Skeptics, and Big-Bang Skeptics.

Why are there no companies listed on a stock exchange which use Young Earth geology to explore for oil and gas?

This is incorrect. I am aware of a number of geologists involved in exploratory companies who hold a biblical creationist position. I am also aware of a number of scientists in research establishments, who do recognize that there is no evidence for evolution or millions of years, but who are afraid to say so publicly because of the treatment they know they would receive.

Here is my challenge to the creationists, the one’s (sic) that think it’s a valid scientific theory anyway. (I did ask this a couple of blogs back and no one answered me). It’s all very well trying to prove and give possible ways of disproving God by trying to prove the Earth is young. Even if the evidence pointed to the Earth being young, it still wouldn’t be concrete evidence for an Intelligent Designer or God, God/Intelligent Designer would still be faith/belief based. How would you disprove God/Intelligent Designer? A repeatable experiment would be helpful.

I’m afraid I have to disappoint. Not everything is susceptible to scientific analysis. Peer-reviewed scientific experiments are for experiments repeatable in the present, not one-off events in the past. The concept of God as Creator is not a hypothesis, it is a presupposition.

In the same way, I would not expect evolutionists to attempt to repeat abiogenesis in the laboratory — though some have claimed, erroneously, to have done so. Indeed, it would not be valid, because even if an abiogenesis simulation actually produced a new living cell, one would have to take into account the intelligent design of the experimenter. Therefore, evolution, which is based on a presupposition that no outside intelligence created life, is also unprovable. Evolution is not a hypothesis – it is a presupposition.

The presupposition that the Creator made everything is the more logical. Its corollaries make more sense of the laws of physics and the laws of logic, and indeed the origin of these. The laws of logic, for example, require an absolute Creator in order to function. Without the presupposition of God, there is no basis for logic and, ultimately, no basis for any knowledge. The questioner requires “concrete evidence.” I am tempted to ask what evidence would be acceptable. But the request is self-defeating. If there is no God, then there are no absolutes. So, concrete evidence cannot be provided. The requirement for concrete evidence presupposes the existence of the Creator.