[__ Science __ ] False History of Creationism Is Full of Beans

[AIG.com]

Phil Vischer apparently does not accept the history recorded in Genesis, and seems unaware of the science that confirms creation and the biblical timescale.

Continue reading...

 

[Barbarian]

"George McCready Price was the primary means through which Adventism influenced the fundamentalist movement. An amateur geologist, Price pushed fundamentalists at the highest level into a Young Earth Creationism. Price’s prestige is illustrated by a turning point at the famous Scopes Trial of 1925, where the agnostic Darrow forced the famed fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan to admit that his Creationist views rested on Price."

Shall the Adventist Fundamentalists Win?

Understanding even this brief history of Adventist fundamentalism can help us to realize just how much of our conversation has been driven by fundamentalist talking points. From women in ministry to movie theaters to drums to the near worship of Ellen White — all have their roots, not in...

spectrummagazine.org

"Although the Southern Baptist Henry Morris was open and generous in acknowledging to historian Ronald Numbers the intellectual debt he owed to Price’s work, as well as the criticism of radiometric dating by Price’s disciple Clifford Burdick (1894-1992), Numbers (1992, 194-195, 399n), that information has atrophied in the creationist community. Angela Hunt (1987) did not allude to the role of Price’s work in the genesis of Henry Morris’ Flood Geology in her paean at the Fundamentalist Journal, for example, and when I mentioned the history of YEC at Mike Riddle’s Answers in Genesis presentation at a local Spokane, Washington church in March 2010, Riddle steadfastly insisted there was no such connection. One of the church members at Riddle’s 2010 presentation (who prided himself on his direct contact with Morris and Gish) likewise declared how Morris derived his Flood Geology arguments simply by “reading the Bible.” Georgia Purdom & Mark Looy (2011) summarily reject Numbers’ account at the AiG website, which causes the SABBSA (2011f) to stand out from the pack for at least acknowledging The New Geology as “inspiration and basis” for The Genesis Flood in what was for them a better than average summary of the history of the creation-evolution controversy.

Perhaps more amazingly, the pleasant young pastor of a local Spokane Adventist church I spoke with after some antievolution presentations in 2012 was totally unaware that Young Earth Creationism derived from his own denomination’s White and Price, and a young ex-Adventist I met at a meeting of the Eastern Washington University Atheists club in 2013 also had never heard of the Adventist-YEC historical link in her own understanding of the faith. The propensity for historical revisionism among Tortucan-driven institutions will be seen to play as critical a role in the dynamics of modern Kulturkampf creationism as does their wanton disregard of the formal scientific literature."

The Gospel According to Henry Morris—Young Earth Creationism goes “mainstream”

The Gospel According to Henry Morris—Young Earth Creationism goes “mainstream”

www.tortucan.com

 

[Truthfrees]

Phil Vischer apparently does not accept the history recorded in Genesis, and seems unaware of the science that confirms creation and the biblical timescale.

Continue reading...

thanks - great article

"Lisle: I have known Ken Ham for many years and have never heard him say or seen him write anything that is contrary to any fact that has been established by the scientific method. So, I challenge Phil to produce some evidence to back up his accusation. Namely, can Phil produce one scientific fact (something that is testable, observable, and repeatable in the present, and hence follows the scientific method) that Ken Ham denies or persuades others to deny?

Could it be that Phil has been fooled by the secular rhetoric into believing that evolution and/or deep time are somehow “scientific” ideas? If so, then maybe he should spend a little more time learning from Ken Ham and AiG’s team of Ph.D. scientists about the differences between operational science and stories about the past."

 

[Barbarian]

Many YE creationists are embarrassed and in denial about the Adventist roots of their new doctrines. But that is from where YE creationism, as it is today, came to be. The early creationist founders like Henry Morris, were convinced by Price's Flood geology, and became followers of his new doctrine.

In 1938 Price, with a group of Adventists in Los Angeles, founded what became the Deluge Geology Society (DGS), with membership restricted to those believing that the creation week comprised "six literal days, and that the Deluge should be studied as the cause of the major geological changes since creation". Not all DGS-adherents were Adventists; early members included the Independent Baptist Henry M. Morris and the Missouri Lutheran Walter E. Lammerts. The DGS undertook field-work: in June 1941 their first Bulletin hailed the news that the Paluxy River dinosaur trackways in Texas appeared to include human footprints. Though Nelson had advised Price in 1939 that this was "absurd" and that the difficulty of human footprints forming during the turmoil of the deluge would "knock the Flood theory all to pieces", in 1943 the DGS began raising funds for "actual excavation" by a Footprint Research Committee of members including the consulting geologist Clifford L. Burdick. Initially they tried to keep their research secret from "unfriendly scientists". Then in 1945, to encourage backing, they announced giant human footprints, allegedly defeating "at a single stroke" the theory of evolution. The revelation that locals had carved the footprints, and an unsuccessful field trip that year, failed to dampen their hopes. However, by then doctrinal arguments had riven the DGS. The most extreme dispute began in late 1938 after Harold W. Clark observed deep drilling in oil fields and had discussions with practical geologists which dispelled the belief that the fossil sequence was random, convincing him that the evidence of thrust faults was "almost incontrovertible". He wrote to Price, telling his teacher that the "rocks do lie in a much more definite sequence than we have ever allowed", and proposing that the fossil sequence was explained by ecological zones before the flood. Price reacted with fury, and despite Clark emphasising their shared belief in literal recent Creation, the dispute continued. In 1946 Clark set out his views in a book, The New Diluvialism, which Price denounced as Theories of Satanic Origin.[51]

Flood geology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Milk-Drops]

thanks - great article

"Lisle: I have known Ken Ham for many years and have never heard him say or seen him write anything that is contrary to any fact that has been established by the scientific method. So, I challenge Phil to produce some evidence to back up his accusation. Namely, can Phil produce one scientific fact (something that is testable, observable, and repeatable in the present, and hence follows the scientific method) that Ken Ham denies or persuades others to deny?

Could it be that Phil has been fooled by the secular rhetoric into believing that evolution and/or deep time are somehow “scientific” ideas? If so, then maybe he should spend a little more time learning from Ken Ham and AiG’s team of Ph.D. scientists about the differences between operational science and stories about the past."

I would like to ask. What is the end goal to convincing people that Evolution is true if its a hoax. The Follow up question would then be, why spend so much budget money keeping up this fraud? What is the return on investment?

 

[Barbarian]

"Lisle: I have known Ken Ham for many years and have never heard him say or seen him write anything that is contrary to any fact that has been established by the scientific method.

Ham, for example, is convinced that "spontaneous generation" is part of evolutionary theory. He's not very scientifically astute, and often makes huge goofs like that.

 

[Barbarian]

I would like to ask. What is the end goal to convincing people that Evolution is true if its a hoax. The Follow up question would then be, why spend so much budget money keeping up this fraud? What is the return on investment?

The problem for creationists, is that nothing in biology makes any sense without evolution. It's foundational to understanding why organisms re organized as they are. Mysteries like the placement of nerves, structures that appear to be suboptimal (and often are suboptimal) clear up when one understands evolution of living things.

You might as well demand that rocket scientists abandon physics.

 

[Truthfrees]

I would like to ask. What is the end goal to convincing people that Evolution is true if its a hoax. The Follow up question would then be, why spend so much budget money keeping up this fraud? What is the return on investment?

evolution is an unproven theory - if you genuinely believe the theory you will promote it

 

[Milk-Drops]

evolution is an unproven theory - if you genuinely believe the theory you will promote it

That is not an answer to my question. I'm asking why governments and schools would fund and parade such a hoax and what the return on this said investment would be?

Especially in the US where the majority of the population believes in a creator God and some form of creation.

 

[Truthfrees]

That is not an answer to my question. I'm asking why governments and schools would fund and parade such a hoax and what the return on this said investment would be?

Especially in the US where the majority of the population believes in a creator God and some form of creation.

you'll have to answer your own question for yourself - bye

 

[Barbarian]

evolution is an unproven theory - if you genuinely believe the theory you will promote it

Evolution, as you have seen, is an observed phenomenon. There is a theory that explains it. As we've discussed before, theories are not "proven." Logical certainty is not part of science. It's inductive, which means we observe data and infer what the rules are. It's how Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, etc. made all those discoveries.

The issue is that like Copernican cosmology, everything else makes sense once you accept the fact. Biology, without evolution, is a mess of ad-hoc rationalizations and classifications with no logical order or meaning.

As Newton, observed, God's creation is reasonable, and logical, and facts illuminate the sense of it all, even if it's not a fair universe as we count fairness.