Creationist "Science"

Creationism, that is "young Earth creationism" (YEC), is something of an oddity to me, not least for the reason that I hold fairly stringent atheist views. First cobbled together by an 17th century clergyman named James Ussher, it falls within the realm of oddball points of view which I find incomprehensible in the context of our modern age (which also would include the Flat Earth Society, Smokers who refuse to believe in the harm of cigarettes, those who believe in WMD are yet to be found in Iraq, and "Sarah Palin-for-President"). If Jerry Springer has achieved anything, is that the tapestry of society is vast, layered, and sometimes willing to through a jumping high-kick at their wife's mullet-headed lover in front of millions of daytime viewers. But, I digress.

Despite being abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept in the 19th century, YEC continues to enjoy substantial support. According to Citizendium.org, "...despite the fact that creationism has generally been rejected by scientists, it has a strong following within the United States and many Muslim nations. 2 Gallup polls conducted in 1991 and 1997 in the United States found that approximately 45% of the population seemed to believe in young earth creationism..." Other reports are less encouraging. Since it is basically a position indisputably rooted in the literal truth of the Bible, it is by definition inconsitent with the principles of scientific objectivity and therefore a position of faith. Generally, starting from an endstate and then digging up whatever you can to support it and ignoring that which does is generally bad science, but this is precisely what Answers in Genesis , a leading supporter of what is termed creation science, does (as do a number of other creation science organizations, including all of those listed here.)

I recently sent an email to one of these places in order to request that they explain their use of the word science in their title, in light of the above, rather than simply being a position of faith (which makes more sense). In a sermon-like reply, one member of their board rambled about how

"...creation is a “belief system” that fits the facts of the present world,
but that macroevolution is a “belief system” that the facts have failed. I
believe in creation BECAUSE of the evidence. Unfortunately, I see many people,
like Dawkins (who doesn’t even know how life got going), BELIEVING in the whole
macroevolutionary story IN SPITE of the evidence....Once one understands what
the evidence would look like if creation were true, there’s know doubt that the
fossils support creation. I guess that’s why Darwin said the worst part of
his theory was the fossils themselves. I guess that’s also why Darwin was hoping
the evidence from the fossils (for evolution) would be found in the years to
come"

Actually, Darwin used the fossil record to support his theory, but I digress. He also made the point that "...that Darwin’s ONLY earned degree was in theology? He knew what the evidence for creation would be." I replied that nothing had really been answered, and that one could not really insert fairies wherever there were anomalies in data not explained by theories. It prompted the following angry reply:

Creation is based on what we do know in genetics. Creation is based on what we
do understand in information science. Evolution is based on some "super-natural"
chemistry we've never observed. Evolution is based on what we don't know, what
we haven't found. It contradicts everything we HAVE OBSERVED. It is no more than wishful thinking. Listen, you are welcome to BELIEVE in macroevolution is you
want, but please, please don't call that science! Please don't expend your
energy spewing out rubbish that creation isn't scientific and that evolutionism
is. If you don't want to put up the evidence, if you don't want to come and see
the evidence for yourself, if you want to continue wallowing in your own
self-ignorance, then we have NO time for such exchanges. Sorry for the
bluntness, but we get e-mails like yours every day and we grow tired of the
intellectual emptiness inherent such attempts to censor good evidence

I am pleased that they invested so much time on my email, considering they get them each day (some of which, I imagine, were not nearly so polite as my own). However it is clear I've given a sore sport a good wack. Their amateur observations of geology, or genetics, have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal that I am aware of.

I then received another mail from a sort of travelling expert on Creationist "science" (http://www.ianjuby.com/), who had been forwarded my email from creationist #1. He responded with his own two cents in a slightly more levelheaded (if wrongheaded) way.

With due respect, evolution requires violation of well established scientific and natural laws (i.e., the laws of biogenesis, thermodynamics,and all observable science performed with regards to genetics andinformation), and as such evolution is neither scientific, nor natural, but supernatural by very definition of the word.

Actually, it's entirely consistent. To answer his little tidbits: Biogenesis, a theory (I suppose in his meaning) that life can only arise from life, is largely discredited by mainstream science. He may also mean abiogenesis, but this is currently considered a fundamental building block theory for evolution. And, there is nothing to suggest that evolution violates any of the three laws of thermodynamics, as...these are laws and invioable. Assuming that he is referring to the problem of entropy, this is not a problem as the Earth and the organisms that live upon it are not a closed systems where energy is concerned. It points to a fundamental misunderstanding of 1st year physics, which one may construe as wilful ignorance.


Another of his articles on the subject deep geologic pressure supports the proposition that these are amateurs playing out of their depth. Here the author feels that, should the earth - in fact - be millions of years old, then the intense pressure that we measure at depths in rock would, in fact, have dissipated by now. This argues very strongly about what is known about the law of gravity, let alone with what is known about the geologic structure of the Earth. It may be that he has raw data that suggests that gravity dissipates over time, but I am not aware of it being published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal.

By this time, I felt this was getting out of hand and that my name was being circulated through the wider creationist community. Fundamentalists have been known to act rashly when offended, so I sent an apology for offending their belief system, and a resolution to "agree to disagree". This was not enough for the owner of the museum, who sent me the following (Italics and caps attributed to author):

You have the chance to know the truth, but are willing ignorant. How are you going to explain this one to Him. Ross and if I may suggest reading the New Testament. I hear it's beautiful in Ottawa this time of year, That is where you are
from isn't. May God bless you and yours greatly if your willing to learn
the TRUTH! HN. p.s. Yes Ross we can know the truth if we are willing
to look at ALL THE EVIDENCE!

I have yet to see any credible evidence to suggest our ancestors rode a triceratops whilst hunting brontosaurs either, but this presumably fits squarely in the YEC framework. Since I am not certain if there is a veiled threat in the second-last sentence fragment in the above, I decided that discretion is the better part of valour and quietly removed my stick from the proverbial hornet's nest.

For all the efforts that YEC devotees have made to act as if their work is supported by science, their behavior suggests that they are, in fact, members of a church that feels increasingly marginalized in world surrounded by the products of science (i.e. both knowledge, and technology). While I am always aghast at the sort of traction such views have in the US, I think - in the end - reason will prevail and perhaps such views deserve our pity.