Yesterday a short email I sent to Sorensen about this blog post - http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/08 ... and-2.html
- was also copied to the bible.and.science.forum for information.
They have made the following detailed comment by email copied to Bob. Apparently they also posted it at 'The Question Evolution Project' - but it was almost instantly censored from that page without any detailed response being made (none is visible).
">What chance of the people you censor ever becoming Christians when they see your dishonest and bigoted behaviour?
Sad but true. Personally, I never thought that the "Lying for Jesus" movement would become so prominent that Young Earth Creationism would become the #1 greatest obstacle to the Great Commission for those of us evangelical Christians in the USA.
I can still remember "the good old days" when the most common objection that people had when they realized that I was a Christians was: "There are just too many hypocrites in the church. I don't want to be around a bunch of hypocrites." But I haven't heard that complaint in years. Now, especially if I"m dealing with people in a Bible Belt area it is, "Sorry. If I have to throw away my brain to be Christian and lie like a rug, I'm not interested." When I asked what they mean, they say things like this:
"You know: the whole 6,000 years old earth business and each animal being zapped into existence. And then lying with slogans like "There is zero evidence for evolution." and "Evolution is a theory in crisis" and "Scientists are abandoning The Theory of Evolution in droves."
"Maybe I could handle it if they just said, "I don't find the evidence for evolution convincing", but to sound confident they lie constantly."
"I remember when I was young a man came to our church and ranted about The Theory of Evolution dying a rapid death and all the scientists were allegedly embarrassed of it. It was collapsing under its own weight, he claimed! Yet, a half a century has gone by and because of genome mapping, the theory is stronger than ever. That's just lying."
No, the lying tactic just isn't working for Young Earth Creationists. A lot of people realize that abiogenesis and evolution are two different topics, yet they lie and say "The biology textbooks are full of goo-to-you evolution!" YECs misuse terminology but textbooks don't. "Goo-to-you" is a creationist term. Plus, in any case, "goo-to-you" is what the Bible teaches: Genesis 2:7 is one of many examples: HADAM ("the human one") was formed from THE DUST OF THE GROUND. Life from non-living ingredients. That is the very definition of abiogenesis! And it is right there in the Bible, if the YECs would ever bother to LEARN from the Bible. And whether you call it "primordial soup" or "goo", "the dust of the ground" is where all life came from, and when you add water (which is required for all life) to "the dust of the ground", you get primordial soup or goo! Learn it! Live with it! We shouldn't have to explain these basics to Young Earth Creationists----but I have to do it all the time!
Yes, Genesis is very clear with the first stage (the dust of the earth, the chemical elements of the earth's crust) and the last stage (the human.) But Genesis says nothing about the intermediate stages that God used. For that, the Bible says he gave us another revelation with answers: the creation itself. Yes, "the heavens are telling" of the God's marvelous works, but many Young Earth Creationists refuse to listen to God's answers within his creation.
Bob, don't you think it is time for creationist lying to end?
In fact, here's one from your Facebook page. It is a good example of how YEC nonsense only creates more obstacles other Christians have to waste time on before we have credibility to present the Gospel message:
>That fits, since Evolution is actually an ancient pagan religion.
Even beyond the jaw-dropping ignorance of such claims, a religion is a belief system which differs from mere philosophy by virtue of a BELIEF IN SOME TRANSCENDENCE. Yet YECs are always complaining that evolution (like all real science) is methodologically naturalistic! So which is it, Bob? If evolution is a religion, it must revere something that is transcendent. But if it too "naturalistic", it CAN'T be transcendent!
Of course, if a Young Earth Creationist ever used terminology correctly and honestly, they probably couldn't be Young Earth Creationist. (It violates membership rules.)
ICE CORE ARTICLES
Ashley, I don't know why I wasted 15 minutes of my life but ice cores is a topic in which I'm well read and I thought it would be interested to check out how the YECs lie on this one. But my first impression was how oddly written was this poorly organized collection of random lies and undocumented ramblings. If one of my undergrads---let alone the PhD candidates---handed in a paper that incomplete and ambling, I would have lasted all of three or four paragraphs, and would have written across the top in red: "Unacceptable. See me during my office hours." NO professor would have wasted time on what was just a propaganda piece trying to persuade the uninformed, not a serious attempt at following the evidence where it leads. And that brings me to a topic of Bob's Facebook page: Are "creation scientists real scientists"?
Real scientists do real SCIENCE. And for that, the question is whether or not they use the scientific method to guide their research. Yet all of the "creation science" organizations stress that they start NOT with the evidence but with with a DOCTRINAL STATEMENT saying that any and all evidence which does NOT agree with the organization's founder's personal interpretations of the Bible is rejected.
Think about it. The "scientists" vows in advance ---under threat of job loss (whether formal employment or contract work)---to NOT follow the evidence where it leads. I think YECs understand this bias problem. But rather than SOLVING it, they simply pretend that real scientists DON'T follow the evidence and somehow START from a biased position. No. That's not how the academy works. In fact, probably the most common reason for a peer-review paper being rejected is that for one of a number of specific reasons, the paper fails to supports its hypothesis and conclusion with proper methodology and evidence. (In other words, the paper has flaws, failures, and gaps which MAY even be due to bias, whether deliberate or not doesn't matter.)
Dr. Krauss and Dr. Dawkins certainly spew bias when ranting about their anti-theism, but their peer-reviewed science is first rate. My general contempt for their arrogance and anti-theism and pontifications on topics in which they have very little knowledge does NOT change the fact that their SCIENCE is worthy of my respect because it lives up to the professional standards of the scientific method. You see, I can't LIE about their work just because I dislike their anti-theism and because they are annoying arrogant twits. I can oppose them without lying about them. (See the difference, Bob?)
I considered critiquing the ICE CORE articles, but I'm sure Bob would ignore a presentation of facts. The article reads like they are many years behind the science. Secondly, they misrepresent the science constantly. Thirdly, whenever they make a bombastic statement requiring some kind of solid basis, one would AT LEAST expect a helpful citation. But we are always expected to "take their word for it", even when they are basically refuting the entire science academy. Fourthly, they work their way up to a crescendo where the reader is keen to see the argument culminate in some devastating evidence against scientists' methodology----but then they move on to the next topic instead! Fifthly, they outline some of the problems that scientists have to deal with processing ice cores but they stop short of how scientists developed quality control and multiple processes to verify conclusions by multiple methods. They leave the reader to assume that the field of ice core dating is hopelessly riddled with problems, something only a very biased---AND DISHONEST---person(s) would do.
Even so, the most galling problem for me was the traditional Young Earth Creationist lie of confusing CONSILIENCE with "circular reasoning". Few YEC lies are more obvious. When scientists have multiple methods they can use to verify a result, that is a GOOD thing, not some kind of "logical fallacy". But the consilience gets WORDED in the article as if the scientists are using a circular reasoning to verify the results. Someone with the time and patience on their hands would do well to catalogue some of the most common types of CONSILIENCE (one of the greatest strengths of the evidence for an "old earth" and The Theory of Evolution) and how YECs use oddly worded descriptions of scientists' methodology in order to trick the gullible into THINKING it is circular reasoning. Yes, radiometric dating and strata rock and mineral composition can be used to help identify strata and observations of the fossils can be used to help identify the fossils, but that does NOT mean that radiometric dating can only be confirmed by the fossils and the fossils by means of the radiometric dating. But only a minimum of effort is necessary for tricking the naive into thinking that this is circular-reasoning. Who would have thought that consilience, the very source of our very greatest confidence in our science, could be turned into an alleged liability? Who would have thought that? Anybody who understands the LYING FOR JESUS that is the "creation science" movement.
Yet, the greatest weakness of the paper---which is quite devastating to the Young Earth Creationist position--- is the tired old YEC strategy of trying to find something POTENTIALLY if not actually wrong with each aspect of ice core science. The reality doesn't matter to them: only the planting of doubt in the minds of the science-illiterate and naive reader. Each aspect of the physics, developed over many decades of careful experimentation and CROSS-VERIFICATION of accuracy by everything from tree rings to historical records to corals, chalk layers, and fungii fields---and failing to mention to the reader that those years alone add up to far more than any Young Earth Creationist accepts for the age of a "young earth." Yet they conclude the article by the out-of-nowhere sweeping assumption that 800,000 layers of ice cores, which are in the REAL world are differentiated by more methods and discriminating techniques than what the authors admit in the article, can be reduced to just some 6,000 years or perhaps just the 4300 years since the flood. Of course, they have provided ZERO evidence for a young earth, but they THINK they have successfully debunked all of the world's ice core specialists. That is ALWAYS the "martyr complex" of the YEC mindset. The resolute few against the many scientists of the worldwide conspiracy of the science academy. It's always David against Goliath. No matter what the science topic, somehow the same small group of "creation scientists" ---we all recognize the two dozen names which constitute the potential "propaganda pool" of authors for every such article. Those guys sure have a lot of science specialties!
Of course, much like "The dog ate my homework!", creation science authors will always claim that their paper was outstanding and even downright SUPERLATIVE----but those mean, unfair, biased scientists fear the exposure of their worldwide conspiracy and will "bury" the paper so it never sees the light of day. Yep, we know the ol' story and we know the routine. But truth be told, they don't really care. The purpose of such articles is to reach out to non-scientists and keep the donors encouraged.
Been there. Done that. Yes, I was a teenaged YEC. But I couldn't continue to look the other way after I figured out I was being lied to by my "creation science" heroes. Of that group, only John Whitcomb Jr. remains alive today. But sadly, the new generation of "Liars for Jesus" make the founders look like paragons of virtue. Yes, "creation science" has become an embarrassment in crisis.