Earlier this month, the Sixth International Conference on Creationism took place in Pittsburgh. Sponsored by the Creation Science Fellowship and the Institute for Creation Research, the week-long event billed itself as a “highly technical, peer reviewed symposium, with planned rebuttals and discussions.” Papers submitted for the conference were put through a “technical review process” that included the following criteria:
Is the Summary’s topic important to the development of the creation model?
Does the Summary’s topic provide an original contribution to the creation
model?Is this Summary formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
Does this Summary provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammaticohistorical/normative interpretation of Scripture?
Of course, precisely which peers did the reviewing hasn’t been revealed, though it doesn’t take much effort to guess that every one of them is a staunch creationist of the “young-Earth” variety.
Jason Rosenhouse, who writes EvolutionBlog and has been covering the conference in detail, had the following to report:
Sadly, while I have generally been impressed with the personality and temperament of many of the people I have met at these conferences, the fact remains that they are hopelessly ignorant of science. This ignorance is exacerbated by the annoying fact that so many of them fancy themselves highly knowledgeable indeed.
His point is apparent in some of the papers accepted for discussion:
* Big Bang: Fact or Fiction?
* The Beginning of Human Life: Re-Evaluating the Biblical Evidence
* Relativistic String Dynamics Support Biblical Creationism
* Electrodynamic Origin of the Force of Gravity
* Oceanic Circulation Trends … during Noah’s Flood
Relativistic string dynamics? Electrodynamic origins? These titles may be the equivalent of political rhetoric (sound and fury signifying just about nothing) but they certainly sound impressive and “scientific.” At the very least, the CSF and ICR are going to some pretty grand lengths to paint the rubric of “legitimate academic research” on a set of beliefs that are, as Rosenhouse describes it, “a patina of science and calm argumentation, with the revival tent never lurking far beneath the surface.”
Not to be outdone, the Atheist Alliance International Convention will be held on September 25th - 28th, and will feature a Mexican buffet, an awards dinner with a performance by Jill Sobule, and a guest speaker list including Secular Coalition lobbyist Lori Lipman Brown, Skeptic Magazine publisher Michael Shermer, and P.Z. Myers. At least the atheists know how to have a little fun.
Image: iStockPhoto
August 18th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Rosenhouse says -
“Sadly, while I have generally been impressed with the personality and temperament of many of the people I have met at these conferences, the fact remains that they are hopelessly ignorant of science. This ignorance is exacerbated by the annoying fact that so many of them fancy themselves highly knowledgeable indeed.”
What arrogance! Such statements are borne from secular intolerance to any competing origins model. It’s hydrogen gas-to-people or nothing - and no intelligence is allowed. Ironically, Rosenhouse blusters non-darwinists “fancy themselves highly knowledgeable indeed.” He also makes the frequent secular mistakes of equating science with the unobserved philosophy of macroevolution. Jason, science means what we can observe, test & repeat. No one has ever observed, tested or repeated macroevolution. Indeed, macroevolution is a faith that unknown chemicals came together in an unknown way at an unknown place at an unknown time using an unknown process to produce life. ‘How life began remains an open question’ says
David Deamer, Nature 454, July ‘08. ‘The origin of animals is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself.’ – P.C.J. Donoghue, Nature, v 445, p. 155 Yup - macroevolution is a fact!
August 18th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
“Such statements are borne from secular intolerance to any competing origins model. ”
This statement reflects an inability to distinguish science from apologetics. For those who aren’t clear on the difference, science begins with evidence and draws conclusion; apologetics begins with conclusions and collects evidence to support them.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
It’s interesting to me that the piece broadbrushes these folks as ignorant then turns around and admits ignorance about what some big words mean… “Relativistic string dynamics? Electrodynamic origins?” How about reading the papers and finding out and offering rebuttals of the contents?
August 18th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
The Sixth International Conference on MAGIC.
This childish insane religious woo-woo could only be possible in Idiot America.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Simplifying the divine into a model that fits 3,000 year old stories is an insult to every person of faith. If there is and all powerful being crafting things from behind the scenes, I’d like to think his vision is more complex than bible stories.
This kind of thing is embarassing. Creationists believe that god is omnipotent and omniscient, but somehow not smart enough to create the rich canvas of life that is evolution.
Evolution is not an affront to god, it is his paintbrush.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:42 am
I congratulate Windarr on his ignorance. In the beginning was not only the hydrogen, but helium, also.
It’s slightly interesting that I’d heard nothing whatsoever about this event, not even protests from the various old-earth creationists (old/young origin of life/humanity) who were excluded. Whereas if they actually did have a valid paper that unifies electrodynamics and “the force of gravity” - and treating gravity as a “force” nowadays contradicts General Relativity - then I’d have read -something- about it, I’m sure.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Aaron Blumer says:
“It’s interesting to me that the piece broadbrushes these folks as ignorant then turns around and admits ignorance about what some big words mean… “Relativistic string dynamics?”
There was no such thing as admitting ignorance in this article. If I were to tell you I had discovered the physical phenomenon of sub-sound-quantum-ice-gravitational-stringforce-with-cream-cheese theory would it be ‘admitting ignorance’ if you said you didn’t know what that meant? Or would it be much more to the point to simply state that the entire title is complete gibberish?
The author specifically stated that he felt the titles were all ’sound and fury’ in an attempt to sound legitimately scientific.
When searching the paper “Electrodynamic Origin of the Force of Gravity” I find astounding evidence that the paper was not written to prove anything. In the abstract it says the goal of the paper is propelled by the fact that “Modern Physics is inconsistent with the Christian worldview”.
We do not ‘invent’ science to fit our world view. We observe science and conform our world view to it. This is the equivalent of simply deciding that by your worldview standards yellow is really red, and then trying to disprove color wavelengths to support your “worldview”. In this case, worldview is synonymous with shoehorned ignorance.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
[…] Annual Creationism Conference Takes “Scientific” Approach […]
August 20th, 2008 at 10:00 am
The creationists’ problem is that they believe the Bible to be literally true all the way starting from the creation taking place in seven 24-hour periods. Also, they don’t even begin to try to answer what would be really interesting: Why? To what end?
August 28th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Whu? Is that serious or are you pulling our Poe?
August 28th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Velska asks “Why? To what end?”
For arguments sake, just suppose, hypothetically speaking, that the Bible is true, and we ARE created in God’s image. In that case we can infer that in the same way that human parents care for their children, providing the best they can in the way of toys and treats, building beautiful yards and playgrounds for them to play in, spending time with them laughing and relaxing and enjoying their company, etc., so too God cares for us.
But consider this: Could we replace our children with robots? Could we love and be loved by programmed machines that had no choice but to fulfil our every desire? No. Without choice there can be no real friendship or love. That is why (assuming the Bible to be true) God created mankind with the power of contrary choice.
Adam and Eve chose to reject God (sin), and we their descendants have all inherited that. (That is why in the biblical worldview we are sinners in need of salvation.) It would have been inappropriate for mankind to continue to enjoy all the wonders and pleasures God had provided, after we had given God the ‘big finger’, so to speak. So, God expelled us from the wonderland of Eden, cursed us with a finite lifespan, and made us work for our living. The parent-teenager analogy comes strongly to mind.
To a greater or lesser extent, all people choose to reject God from their lives and from society, and that is why there is so much suffering and injustice. It stems from a lack of God and God’s standards.
Humans are social creatures. We desire friends. We can infer that God wanted to create friends. But rather than create mere automatons, God used a method that will ensure that the friends He eventually gets will be true friends of the finest quality, who accept and love their Creator by choice.
Andrew Lamb
September 10th, 2008 at 3:03 am
[…] | user-saved public links | iLinkShare 1 votesAnnual Creationism Conference Takes “Scientific” Approach>> saved by fladi 1 days […]