Misrepresentation, Creationism and Darwin's Weasels
This post will be in two sections. First, an encounter with a fundamentalist evolutionist and his blatant dishonesty. Second, an article by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell of "Answers in Genesis" regarding Russell Garwood's urging of the faithful to "defend evolution".
 |
| stock.xchng/mrscenter |
This tinhorn is either very ignorant, or, as I strongly suspect, very dishonest. (Unfortunately, it is typical of people of his ilk who want to protect their religion.) The old "there is no such thing as a creationist scientist" line is invoked to provoke; it is easily disproved by anyone who cares enough to do an Internet search. Here are two links. First, "Who We Are" at the "Institute for Creation Research", and then a list of creationist scientists. There. The search itself took a matter of seconds, and the most difficult part of that was pasting two search results. Darwinoids and atheopaths are not too keen on doing their homework.
It is one thing to disagree about the interpretations of the facts, but it is quite another to go on such an attack because you disagree. The part that I highlighted in red was, to be blunt, weaselly. Using "creationism" in this manner is a straw man argument. "In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages creationism has been scientifically falsified" not just a further misrepresentation and an outright lie. (Here is just one example of a Biblical creationist scientist resoundingly proved right.)
The second dishonest remark ties in with the first, so his "logic" is nonexistent. Further, he is attempting to poison the well against creationists with his list of disingenuous assertions. Creationist scientists work in scientific fields, contribute, get published and do the same things as their secular counterparts.
Moving on...
Creation and ID organizations do what scientists are supposed to do: Discuss the "findings" as well as dispute bad reasoning and inferences. (After all, evolution is not experimental science, it is historical science based on inference and conjecture. Evidence is not subject to experimentation, replication, observation and falsifiability.) Evolutionists get cranky when their worldview falls under scrutiny and comes up lacking. They conflate evolution with "science", and call for "science" to be defended. Even if they have to misrepresent the facts as well as their opponents to do it.
“Ignoring the creationist threat will not make it go away,” warns paleontologist Russell Garwood in his article “Reach out to defend evolution,” published May 16 in the journal Nature. This well-known journal often contains academic papers putting forth evolutionary positions, and its content is often reported in the popular press. Our weekly column News to Note addresses relevant topics currently covered by the media, so naturally Nature makes frequent appearances there. Apparently, one evolutionary paleontologist, noting one of these News to Note columns, decided he had seen enough. He wrote an article condemning the way creationists, especially Answers in Genesis, present the work of evolutionists to the public and called upon evolutionists to get more aggressive and proactive in their defense of evolution.Read the rest of "Feedback: Evolutionary Call to Arms", here.