Table of Contents:

"Know the enemy and know yourself; ..."

Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
  1. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.

  2. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.

  3. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

"We never knew whom we were fighting and knowing your enemy is the first rule of war."
(Kharn the Undying in Prelude to Axanar, on YouTube at 13:50)

We keep hearing the Religious Right [1] speak of the on-going "culture wars" that they're waging against the rest of society. On the front fighting against evolution, we have the creationists of both the young-earth "creation science" and of the "intelligent design" varieties (though the latter has largely been adopted as a smokescreen for the former).

The problem for these creationist "culture warriors" is that they are violating that first rule of war: they do not know their enemy. In more than three decades, I do not recall ever seeing a creationist actually address or attack evolution itself. Rather, they would always attack their "evolution model", a confused amalgamated mess created by their misunderstanding and their misrepresentations of evolution and of the rest of science. Much of their confusion appears to be from their ignorance of science -- eg, their heavy reliance on "common sense" "folk science" which is almost invariably wrong -- , but sadly much of it has been willfully self-induced. They waste all their efforts on battling strawmen of their own creation. They truly do not know their enemy.

Even worse for them, they also violate Sun Tzu's second rule of knowing yourself. They use claims that they do not understand which are supposedly (but aren't) based on scientific principles that they do not understand. Thus they are unable to explain or to discuss or to defend their own claims, let alone evaluate them for themselves. They also have no knowledge of the history of their claims. Believing that their claims are "new scientific findings" and that no "evolutionist" has ever been able to respond to them, they are unaware that almost all their claims are decades old and were soundly refuted almost immediately (ie, decades ago) and continue to be refuted every day. I have personally witnessed how devastating it is for young over-confident creationists to suddenly learn the harsh truth about their claims -- creationist Dr. Sarfati of Answers in Genesis described it thus: "It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons." They truly do not even know themselves.

The result of their ignorance of their enemy and of themselves is that they cannot win an honest argument; they cannot even begin to participate in one. They may be able to bamboozle themselves and an opponent who is just as ignorant of evolution and science as they are, but they have no chance against a knowledgeable opponent. And since they have been taught to believe that their faith depends on their claims being true, many lose their faith -- a large number of opponents to "creation science" used to be creationists themselves. Those losses include upwards of 80% (according to youth ministers) of the children who had been raised on "creation science", though the effects of other aspects of their theology also play a role. Many creationists (usually the adults who are better at avoiding the truth) do not lose their faith as a result of learning the truth, but instead have to turn to dishonest tactics, including deliberate lies and deception. As a result, "creation science" has damaged the public image of Christians and of Christianity to the point of giving non-Christians very good reasons to reject Christianity and to find Christians to be untrustworthy hypocrites prone to lying (sorry, but that is what their Christian witnessing amounts to).

"Creation science" has even accomplished something through its faulty logic that no anti-God atheist ever could: it has succeeded in disproving the existence of God. Many creationists insist that if their claims are not true, then God doesn't exist. Well, their claims are not true. That faulty argumentation accounts for most of the creationists who lose their faith and it misleads the public into falsely believing that science and evolution disprove God.

Creationists created this situation. Christians need to correct it. Failure to do so will prove disasterous for them and for their religion.

Footnote [1]:

Religious Right or Conservative Christians or Dominionists or Evangelicals or Fundamentalists or whatever they're being called this week. It's a grouping that outwardly appears homogenous, especially with their common goals and demands and protestations, while inwardly they are highly fractured into separate sects that denounce each other because of theological minutiae and will bristle and complain if you refer to them by a label that they would apply to one of those other sects in their group. Ironically, a very major contributor to their "creation science" are the Seventh Day Adventists, which I'm sure most of them consider to be a cult and probably not even Christian.

"We know that ignorance doesn't work, because we've already tried it!"
(The Governor of Mississippi explaining why he was campaigning so hard for education reform in his state, quoted from memory from NPR circa 1990)

"I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed."
(Scott Rauch, a former young-earth creationist)

My Position on "Creation Science":

So my position basically boils down to this:
If you honestly and truly want to fight evolution, then at least do it right! Learn everything you can about evolution and then attack it, not some stupid strawman caricature of it. And do so honestly and truthfully!

By refusing to fight evolution honestly and truthfully, but rather using "creation science" instead, you are constantly shooting yourself in the foot, dooming your cause (ie, the Cause of Christ) to failure and your followers to losing their faith.

If you ignore that in any "response" to my position, then you are ignoring my position and are only railing against some demented fantasy that only exists in your own mind. If you truly intend to respond to my position, then respond to my position!

This page, My Position on "Creation Science", is the unabbreviated outline of my position with exposition, discussion, and examples (lots of examples!) drawn from my three and a half decades of experience with "creation science" which started in 1981.

What I've Learned about "Creation Science" in Three Decades

Having studied "creation science" since 1981, I have found that:

Clearly, "creation science" is very bad theology which does a great disservice to Christians and to Christianity itself.

If you are a Christian or even a creationist, you may object to how non-believers see you. I can think of no other reaction you could have. So if you do not like how non-believers see you, then work to change their perception of you. It's the same idea as maintaining the honor of the uniform: if the public sees a uniformed member behaving badly, then that reflects poorly on all members of that service or even of all services. If you identify yourself to others as a Christian and misbehave, then that reflects poorly on your entire church. Strive to actually uphold and follow the lofty standards you profess to uphold and follow.

You can start by honestly assessing your adherence to "creation science" and what effect it has.

My advice to both creationists and non-creationists

It might be easier if I first give you a bad example that you must not follow and describe what not to do: the typical creationist "scholar". While we can find a few exceptions to this rule, the vast portion of creationist "scholarship" is very shoddy.

So in light of that bad example, here is what I would advise:

  • Never believe what a creationist tells you. Always verify it.
  • Creationists are not in the game for the truth nor for learning something new. They want to convince you and also themselves (to assuage those nagging doubts). Their methods are also dodgy. And most of the time they're just copying from what some other creationist once said -- most of the creationists I'd encounter on-line were just repeating what they had heard and had no understanding of their claim, so they'd always react with anger whenever I'd try to discuss any of their claims with them.

    But also, as I have mentioned above, the first, best first step in refuting a creationist claim is to look up the sources that he cites. For example, a creationist on CompuServe quoted ICR geologist Dr. Steve Austin as describing tree roots extending into a coal seam as per a particular scientific article (Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures: American Journal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869, Q1.A5), but when I read that particular article it actually said that those tree roots did not extend into the coal seams. Had Dr. Austin actually ever read that article? I do not know.

    This admonition also applies to creationists. Think like a scientist for a moment. A scientist is going to work on some research which is based on another scientist's research. Since your research depends on his research, wouldn't you want to know that his research was sound? Wouldn't you want to have tested it out before relying on it? That is the basis for the culture of scientific research where everybody is constantly testing and retesting everybody else's research. The moment the first papers on cold fusion were FAX'd out, physicists everywhere were eagerly awaiting them in order to test the theory. And they found it to be wrong and abandoned the idea. That is how science works, by testing what others claim. Contrast that how creationism works, where any crazy idea is given credence so long as it appears to oppose evolution and sounds convincing. Two entirely different cultures.

    Another aspect of verifying a claim is that if the claim involves a calculation, then do the math yourself! A prime example is a Kent Hovind claim about how much mass the sun is losing as it "burns its fuel" (ie, loses mass through hydrogen fusion), such that Hovind switches to waving his hands as he predicts that the sun 5 billion years ago would have been so incredibly massive that it would have "sucked the earth in." Well, I did do the math and the ancient sun's mass would have only been marginally greater than it is now thus "sucking the earth in" about 40,000 miles. Before you do the math and while you're distracted by his hand-waving, Hovind's claim sounds convincing. Then you do the math and realize the truth. Makes a big difference.

    So assuming that you are a creationist who is dedicated to the truth, wouldn't you want to only use those claims which prove to be true? If a claim proved to be false, would you want to use it anyway? Well, duh, if you're a creationist who doesn't care for the truth but only wants the convincing-sound "ammo" to use for proselytizing, then you wouldn't give it a second thought. You'd be ready and eager to use whatever lie or deception you can in order to serve your god. We see your kind all the time and that is one of the reasons why we reject your false religion.

    Actually, it's a good idea to approach non-creationist claims with the same skepticism. It's just that decades of experience has taught us that the creationist claim is almost always guaranteed to be bogus.

  • Practice good scholarship.
  • Cite your actual sources. Do not just copy what your source says his source was, because he was probably lying too (very common of creationists). When a source is cited, then go to that actual source and verify what it says. That is especially important when verifying a creationist's claim; in many cases, the first and only necessary step in decisively refuting a creationist claim has been to read his purported source. When you quote a source either directly or indirectly, do so accurately. Do not misrepresent what your source says.

    Be mindful of primary and secondary sources. A primary source is the actual original source. A secondary source is a source that references the primary source. If you quote a primary source through a secondary source, then mark your quote accordingly and identify both the primary source and the secondary -- eg, "<primary source> as quoted by <secondary source>". If it is at all possible, go to, read, and use the primary source. If that is not possible and you have to use a secondary source, then at least be honest about it.

    Give your readers enough information for them to look up your sources themselves. After all, why wouldn't they want to read your sources to verify what you have said?

  • Learn all you can about science.
  • That is a tall order, but necessary. So many creationist claims are based on a misunderstanding of the science, such that just knowing something about the science purportedly behind a claim can alert you to what's wrong with that claim.

    One of the benefits of researching creationist claims is that you do learn a lot about science along the way.

  • Learn all you can about evolution.
  • Creationists' main stock-in-trade is misunderstanding and misrepresenting evolution and all their claims "refuting" evolution are based on those misunderstandings and misrepresentations. A few examples are "So why are there still monkeys?" (actually observed in the wild on at least three occasions; in one case, a caller to a radio show creationist Duane Gish was on, Gish had to explain that problem to the caller), "But they're still MOTHS!!!", "To summarize [punctuated equilibria] a snake laid an egg and a bird came out." (actual quote from a creationist "teaching [us] about [our] theory"). There's also a "chicken or the egg" argument a local creationist uses in which a newly evolved chicken and her mate both had to have completely re-evolved their entire reproductive systems, something that makes absolutely no sense if you know anything about evolution, but must somehow seem to make sense according to their own misunderstanding of evolution.

    The better you understand what evolution really is, the less you will be deceived by those creationist arguments. And, if you are a creationist who wants to fight evolution, then by understanding what evolution really is you will know to avoid using those false arguments and fighting those strawman caricatures, and instead actually address evolution itself and address its real problems, not the fake BS other creationists waste their time and efforts dishing out. Why waste your time and effort? Do something meaningful.

  • Learn all you can about "creation science"
  • This also cuts both ways. For the non-creationist who wants to fight "creation science", you have to know all you can about "creation science". The opposition to "creation science" was built of scientists and teachers who in the 1970's had been suckered into a "creation/evolution debate", the creationists' standard travelling snake-oil show, in which they were chewed up piece-meal and spat out. The problem was that they didn't know what they'd be up against, but rather thought the debate would be about science. They could immediately identify their creationist opponent's statements to be complete nonsense, but they didn't know how to explain that fact to the audience in the very limited time the debate format offered them. Plus, many creationist claims lie about what a scientific source says, so they'd have to be able to look up that source in order to show that was not what it actually said, again something that cannot be done in a debate format. But in a few years after having learned about "creation science" and its claims, those scientists and teachers were more than capable of refuting those creationist claims in a debate.

    By knowing those claims, you won't be deceived by them and you will know how to respond to them.

    Similarly, if you are a creationist then you do need to know all you can about "creation science". Most of its claims have been around for decades and each one has a history, which includes its having been refuted. Almost no creationist has any sense of that history. I have actually seen many creationists present a list of old often refuted claims confidently claiming that they "remain unanswered by the evolutionist" (an actual quote from a creationist site). I also witnessed a young creationist get completely blown away when he got up and announced a "brand-new scientific discovery that will blow you evolutionists away", which turned out to be a decade-old claim (Setterfield's claim that the speed of light has been slowing down) and half the audience burst out into uncontrollable laughter while at the same time trying to explain to him why that claim is bogus.

    The main problem for creationists is that their camp and its literature won't tell them the truth about their claims and certainly not those claims' histories. Creationist books are filled with bogus claims that were soundly refuted decades ago and each new generation of creationists picks up those books thinking that that is the latest and greatest information. Then they go out and try to use those claims and they get shot down in flames -- even Answers in Genesis creationists Dr. Jonathan Sarfati and Dr. Don Batten warn of the disasterous effects that can have on a creationist and on his faith (also quoted below).

    In order to learn about "creation science", a creationist needs to go to the opponents of "creation science". Only by reading the critiques and refutations of creationist claims can a creationist learn about "creation science" and to prepare himself to discuss those claims. Or at the very least to learn which claims to avoid using. This falls under the heading of knowing your enemy and yourself.

  • Don't be afraid to read from both sides
  • Creationists have actually responded to my admonition that they need to learn evolution by refusing to do so specifically because that would require them to accept evolution. That reveals their view of education being solely for the purpose of indoctrination whereas the actual goal of education is to encourage understand of ideas and concepts instead of compelling belief (California State Board of Education). Certainly when the US Air Force in 1982 instructed me in Marxism and Communism their intent was definitely not to compel me to become a communist, but rather to enable me to know our enemy.

    Creationists, do not be afraid to read what your opponents and critics say. That information can only help you. Non-creationists, do not be afraid to read what creationists say and write. Instead of taking another non-creationist's word for it, read for yourself the actual claims in the creationists' actual words. And creationists, don't take another creationist's word on what science is and teaches, but rather go straight to the source for the truth.

  • Teach your children.
  • This one is directly primarily at creationists. The primary target of the "creation science" political agenda has always been to keep evolution from being taught in the public schools. I believe that that is very misguided and counter-productive for the creationist cause. If you are a "culture warrior" fighting against evolution and you want your children to grow up to be "culture warriors" too, then you would want them to be properly trained. But in order to fight evolution, both you and they will need to know all they can possibly know about evolution (ie, know your enemy). If you send them into battle not knowing anything about their enemy, they will surely be defeated and will very likely suffer "spiritual death", ie losing their faith. Do you really want that to happen to your children?

    Knowing all they can about what evolution really is can only help your children. They will know which creationist claims and arguments are worthless and hence know not to waste their time with those. They will be able to discover and exploit evolution's real weaknesses and problems which "creation science" knows nothing about because of its misunderstanding and misrepresentation of evolution. And they will be immune from the crises of faith that arise when they discover that you had been lying to them all their lives through "creation science"; remember that Christian sources place the disaffection rate of youth raised in the faith at 65% to 80%.

    For non-creationists, teaching your children will help to immunize them against being deceived by false creationist claims.

  • Honestly assess how what you discover should affect what you believe.
  • Creationists, this will perhaps be the hardest piece of advice for you to follow, but it is also one of the most necessary. This is because "creation science" is holding your faith hostage in very real and dangerous ways. Creationists will tell you that their claims must be true or else "Scripture will have no meaning" (John Morris, ICR) and will insist that should evolution turn out to be true then you should throw your Bible onto a trash heap and become a hedonistic atheist (a position which I saw a creationist insist on most adamantly). They will even go so far as to claim that if evolution is true then God does not exist, or else is a Liar who does not deserve worship. They make your very faith completely dependent on "creation science", thus holding it hostage.

    Those teachings of "creation science" have caused many creationists to lose their faith. Combined with how it also drives others away from ever considering converting to Christianity as a viable option, "creation science" is perhaps the single greatest contributor to the growth and spread of atheism.

    Consider this thought: you may claim to believe in the Bible, but you don't since you believe instead in a theology. Despite claims that Divine Revelation lies at the center of your theology, all the rest of it, the vast majority of it, is Man-made. Fallible humans trying to understand and make sense of that Revelation and of God and Everything. And, being made by fallible humans, our theologies are also fallible. In fact, you don't even follow your church's theology, but rather you follow your own theology which you have created yourself. Sure, you tried to make it the same as your church's theology, but because you do not understand that theology perfectly you have created an imperfect copy for yourself which is loaded with your own misunderstandings. For that matter, it is impossible for anyone to follow an external theology, but rather all we can ever do is to follow our own imperfect misunderstanding of an external theology.

    Now, while you operate as if your theology were completely correct (which is quite natural), what happens when it turns out to be wrong about something? Your theology has you believing that if you were to find even a single error in the Bible then the whole thing is worthless. So what happens when you find an error in your theology? Is your entire theology now worthless and you should discard the whole misguided mess? Why? Your theology is the imperfect product of a very fallible human. It's inevitable that you would have gotten some things wrong when you created that theology. So what should you do? How's about doing what science does when it discovers an error: correct that error. Rather obvious once you look at it, right?

    "Creation science" is a fallible theology. For that matter, it is proven to be riddled with errors. So if they got so much so very wrong, then why should you also believe what they say about what you need to do when you discover an error? Wouldn't you think that maybe they had gotten that wrong too?

    Here's another thought. As a creationist, you believe that God created the universe, right? One devout Christian, a grandfather, referred to Nature as God's First Testament. A creationist once tried to argue that, since Satan had been given dominion over the earth, He had planted all that "false" geological and fossil evidence to make the earth merely appear old. I suggested that, since Satan is such a clever devil, instead of doing all that work all he had to do was to create a false theology that taught that if the world were really as it actually is then that disproved God. Then all that Satan would have to do was to give that false theology to some fundamentalist Christians and they would very zealously do all the work for Him. That creationist never got back to me.

    So then, what is your honest and considered assessment of the consequences of discovering that "creation science" is wrong? That is something that you really do need to work out for yourself.

    "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
    (Scott D. Weitzenhoffer)

    It has been my experience in talking to agnostics and atheists that many were raised in fundamentalist churches and that the denial of the physical evidence that those churches engaged in was a significant reason for them leaving Christ.

    . . .

    The main downfall of Creation Science is that it is combined with a belief in YEC, and generally with a belief that YEC is required for salvation.

    Because of this the evidence suggests that those who ascribe to Creation Science, esp. those who promote it, tend to:

    • Drive Christians to become atheists, agnostics and deists,
    • Become severely self-deluded and/or morally degenerate,
    • Engage in slander.

    "We don't know why the evidence is the way it is but we believe in the literal understanding of Genesis." may be a tougher line to teach than "the worldly, atheistic scientists are all in a conspiracy / brainwashed / blinded by the devil" but if

    • you believe that a literal reading of Gen 1 is required
    • you wish to avoid bearing false witness and
    • you don't want to create atheists
    I strongly recommend it.
    (Robert Morphis, What Harm is done by Creation Science? (link broken))

    What This Site Is and Isn't:

    Over the years it seemed that regardless of how much I'd try to explain what I'm saying, these run-by "good Christians" would still send me hateful emails accusing me of things that I never said. So here's yet another attempt to explain it as clearly and briefly as I can ... yet again.

    My web site contains and deals with:

    What I have been falsely accused of doing (Christian zealots, listen up!):
  • Attacking and trying to disprove religion, Christianity, the Bible, and God.
    Despite the accusations in so many run-by flamings by zealous Christians, I do no such thing here. None of the subject matter here has anything to do with those things. Nor do I ever mention them except to point out how "creation science" itself violates them. Instead, I concentrate on the facts of specific creationist claims about the real world. I do not even address one's religious belief in a young earth, however one's claims of scientific evidence to support those beliefs are fair game.

  • Attacking and trying to disprove creation or creationism.
    Not at all. Creationism, being a religious belief, has my respect since I am a staunch believer in Freedom of Religion. Rather it is "creation science", a deliberate deception, which I oppose. The two are not the same thing, a realization also shared by many creationists (ie, Christians who believe in Divine Creation) who complain that "creation science" has usurped the words "creationism" and "creationist." Unfortunately, over the decades I have had to use those words as usurped by "creation science", but I do still draw a strong distinction between actual creationism and "creation science."

    I see no inherent conflict between evolution and Divine Creation. The only conflict is because of how "creation science" has redefined those terms and in how it has the audacity to dictate to God how He must have created.

  • Attacking your faith.
    Quite the contrary: I'm trying to warn you from having your faith destroyed by "creation science."

  • Promoting "evolutionism" and evolution by attacking creationism.
    For one thing, I have no idea what "evolutionism" is supposed to be. It's a purely creationist term, like "evolutionist". I read it as being their "evolution model", their distorted misrepresentation of science and evolution. Therefore, it most certainly is not evolution! Rather it is purely a product of "creation science" and as such I would never be inclined to promote it!

    Nor is promoting evolution the goal of this web site, but rather the goal is the examiniation of "creation science" claims. I also do not need to promote evolution, which I do think is the best scientific explanation we have for what we observe about living organisms. I will try to correct creationist misrepresentations of evolution and will present information about evolution in response to a creationist claim. For that matter, I will present information about any aspect of science that is being misrepresented in a creationist claim.

    Nor would I ever try to "prove" evolution by disproving "creation science." That's just a case of creationists projecting onto their opponent their own dishonest trickery, namely the "creation science" "Two Model Approach" thinking, which is fallacious ( false dichotomy) and a deliberate deception practiced by creationists. I am not a creationist and I do not use such dishonest tricks. An idea needs to be able to stand on its own merits, not just by attacking other ideas as "creation science" does. Evolution stands on its own quite well, thank you very much.

  • Promoting atheism.
    Even though I have been an atheist for over half a century, I do not seek to turn anyone into an atheist (though I will try to advise and help anyone who is already becoming one). Quite frankly, I think that most people are not ready for the personal responsibility required of an atheist. Indeed, the main thrust of my arguments here always involve warning believers to not let "creation science" turn them into atheists! Would those be the actions of someong trying to destroy people's faith? Remember, I do fully support Freedom of Religion and served honorably for 35 years defending your religious rights as well as my own, so I do take that freedom and that duty very seriously.

    Besides, why should I bother promoting atheism when "creation science" is doing such a good job of promoting the growth and spread of atheism -- though that's with the caveat that it creates "Christian atheists", atheists who still hold to their Christian sect's distorted misunderstanding of what atheism is. Those Christian atheists do need help and I would especially wish to advise and help them to understand what atheism really is and actually entails.

  • Your theology may well require you to hold young-earth creationist (YEC) beliefs (eg, biblical literalism, young earth, Noah's Flood). That is not my concern and I take no issue with those beliefs on my site, though you do have my condolences. That is something that you will need to work out for yourself and I wish you the best of luck with it.

    Rather, where I do get involved is when you claim that the real world must be different than it actually is and that you have scientific evidence to support those beliefs. And again, the reason for my involvement is not because of your religious beliefs, but rather because of the great mischief you wish to cause by promoting false claims. That great mischief includes inappropriate and unethical proselytizing (ie, using lies and deception to deceive your targets into converting), destroying the faith of believers by making their faith directly dependent on false teachings, and endeavoring to subvert and destroy science education. That great mischief has already caused far too much damage.

    At the very least, if you insist on using such claims then you must ensure that you only use the ones that are both valid and true. The only way to ensure that is to test all of your claims and to eliminate those that fail the test and ensure that you never use them. That is the testing service that I offer.

    Creationism is charged with being untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to make the interlinked claims that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that Creationism makes no empirical assertions whatever. This is surely false. Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters of fact.

    . . .

    It is fair to say that no one has shown how to reconcile such claims with the available evidence -- evidence which speaks persuasively to a long earth history, among other things.

    In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests.

    . . .

    Rather than taking on the creationists obliquely in wholesale fashion by suggesting that what they are doing is "unscientific" tout court (which is doubly silly because few authors can even agree on what makes an activity scientific), we should confront their claims directly and in piecemeal fashion by asking what evidence and arguments can be marshaled for and against each of them.

    (Larry Laudan, Science at the Bar -- Causes for Concern)

    So why am I doing this?
    What motivates me to devote so much time and energy to this subject?

    I guess it's mainly disgust and moral outrage, a reaction that I've also seen others have to "creation science."

    When in 1981 I learned that "creation science" was still around, I assumed that maybe there is something to their claims after all, that they do indeed have evidence for creation. I wanted to learn what that evidence was, so I started researching creationist claims. What I found was not the slightest bit pretty and it keeps getting uglier and uglier the deeper I continue to dig.

    I found that they have no evidence. Rather, they misquote and misrepresent their sources, science, and what evolution actually is and teaches. I have personally seen leading creationists ignore the actual evidence even when it's right there in front of them and I have also witnessed several cases of outright fabrication and lying.

    I have found that "creation science" is nothing more than a pack of lies and deception, a false theology. Its intended purpose is to stop the teaching of ideas that they do not even understand (eg, evolution, evidence that the earth is old) and to proselytize, to use deception to dupe their victims into converting to their false theology. That includes using the public schools to proselytize. As a result, elementary-grade students have become atheists precisely as instructed to by the "balanced treatment" creationist presentation (see also). And many former creationists have lost their faith because of "creation science."

    But there's also a positive aspect to this endeavor. In the process of researching creationist claims, I have learned so much more about science. Learning is a good thing; as it is written in the Pirkei Avot ("Sayings of the Fathers", repeatedly quoted from in the movie, Yentl), "The more learning the more life!"

    On YouTube I have found a series of videos whose premise echoes that learning experience: How Creationism Taught Me Real Science. It is a series of 40 videos by Tony Reed. The general format of each video is that he starts out "encountering" a creationist claim, finds that it sounds convincing, and decides to check it out, to verify it. And of course the claim falls apart under inspection.

    Links to Site Contents

    Contact Information:

    The contact information links on all my creation/evolution pages link to here. That is because I have something that you need to read before you decide to send me a hate email.

    Far too often in the past, with sickening regularity, I have received extremely angry emails from creationists ranting against my site, yet no offense that they named ever had anything at all to do with my site nor with my frequently-stated position. They were flaming me (and sounded like they would have literally set me ablaze if they could physically get to me and a wood pile) for what they imagined I might have written, rather than for what I had actually written. To place it in the wording of the Matthew 7:20 Test, their actions are the wicked fruit produced by their theology and by their fruits we do know them all too well, unfortunately for decent folk.

    If you email me regarding my site, please address what's actually there rather than what you may wish to imagine to be there. Please include some kind of reference to which page you are referring to and where in that page, which will help me immensely in answering whatever question you may have, or in clarifying what you may have misunderstood.

    And by the way, if you do email me, be sure to give it a meaningful subject line, one that will tell me that your email is not just spam. So if it looks like spam (ie, with subject lines such as "" (blank), "Hi", "Re:", "Re: your website", etc.), then your email will go straight to the round file (AKA "be deleted without being opened"). Mentioning that it's my creation/evolution website would help. Mentioning the specific page in the subject line would be even better (and absolutely necessary within the message itself).

    And before I finally get around to giving you my email address, I ask that you continue reading this page first. I ask that so that you can become familiar with my position and what I am trying to do with these pages. With that knowledge, you can hopefully write a more informed email which would be far more constructive than you damning me for "crimes against God" which exist only in your own imagination.

    So please think before you send. I always look forward to thoughtful discussion.

    E-Mail Address: dwise1@aol.com.

    Some Quotes Supporting My Position
    (including from a couple professional young-earth creationists and even from a saint)

    The quotes in this section are to show that my opinions are not unique to me. And that my warnings to creationists are also being given by professional young-earth creationists (in these examples, Drs. Sarfati and Batten from Answers in Genesis) and even by a saint. And that those professional creationists' warnings of the consequences of using false claims are the same as my own warnings, the only difference being that I recognize their other creationist claims as also being false, albeit perhaps not as obviously false as the ones they disparage.

    De Genese ad litteram, Saint Augustine, fourth century
    "It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

    "And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement."

    From Science at the Bar -- Causes for Concern by Larry Laudan, Science, Technology and Human Values 7, no. 41 (1982):16-19 (my emphasis added):
    At various key points in the Opinion, Creationism is charged with being untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to make the interlinked claims that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that Creationism makes no empirical assertions whatever. This is surely false. Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters of fact.

    Thus, as Judge Overton himself grants (apparently without seeing its implications), the creationists say that the earth is of very recent origin (say 6,000 to 20,000 years old); they argue that most of the geological features of the earth's surface are diluvial in character (i.e., products of the postulated worldwide Noachian deluge); they are committed to a large number of factual historical claims with which the Old Testament is replete; they assert the limited variability of species. They are committed to the view that, since animals and man were created at the same time, the human fossil record must be paleontologically co-extensive with the record of lower animals. It is fair to say that no one has shown how to reconcile such claims with the available evidence -- evidence which speaks persuasively to a long earth history, among other things.

    In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests.

    . . .

    What counts is the epistemic status of Creationism, not the cognitive idiosyncrasies of the creationists. Because many of the theses of Creationism are testable, the mind set of creationists has no bearing in law or in fact on the merits of Creationism."

    . . .

    Rather than taking on the creationists obliquely in wholesale fashion by suggesting that what they are doing is "unscientific" tout court (which is doubly silly because few authors can even agree on what makes an activity scientific), we should confront their claims directly and in piecemeal fashion by asking what evidence and arguments can be marshaled for and against each of them. The core issue is not whether Creationism satisfies some undemanding and highly controversial definitions of what is scientific; the real question is whether the existing evidence provides stronger arguments for evolutionary theory than for Creationism. Once that question is settled, we will know what belongs in the classroom and what does not. Debating the scientific status of Creationism (especially when "science" is construed in such an unfortunate manner) is a red herring that diverts attention away from the issues that should concern us.

    From More on Creationism by Larry Laudan, Science, Technology and Human Values 8, no. 42 (1983):36-38 (my emphasis added):
    ...the soundness of creation-science can and must be separated from all questions about the dogmatism of creationists. Once we make that rudimentary separation, we discover both (a) that creation-science is testable and falsifiable, and (b) that creation-science has been tested and falsified -- insofar as any theory can be said to be falsified. But, as I pointed out in the earlier essay, that damning indictment cannot be drawn so long as we confuse Creationism and creationists to such an extent that we take the creationists' mental intransigence to entail the immunity of creationist theory from empirical confrontation.

    From Answers in Genesis Negative Feedback by Dr. Sarfati, Answers in Genesis website, Dec 2002:
    As said in the original Don’t Use page, the harm is in using something which is not true, because the cause of the one who is "the truth" cannot be helped thereby. And your own recent experience reinforces something else we said—that using discredited arguments can backfire on the user. So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire, and return their focus to the Word of God not "evidence."

    . . .

    But more and more over the last few years, we have noticed tens of thousands of Christians excitedly using arguments over the Web, for instance, that are a plain embarrassment to those with scientific training. It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons. Further, and most importantly, it had escalated to the point where it was a hindrance to soul winning, since it gave the hearers a "legitimate" excuse to reject Christ.

    And all we did at that point was to publish an "advice" article. The only time it became relevant to a specific creationist was when Kent [Hovind] himself decided to align himself publicly with a justification of false arguments. If it had been one or two minor points of disagreement, OK, but when it reinforces some of the most blatant fallacies, and even defends fraud, at what point does one NOT face one's responsibilities to the innocents being "slaughtered" in the belief that they are getting sound ammunition?

    . . .

    ... , we actually do know people who say they almost gave the faith away when they found out that a particular argument was fallacious, and who say that finding Christians with the integrity to avoid falsehood, no matter what the cost, helped restore it. Also, in the last day or so, a leading atheistic anti-creationist organization said that while they disagreed with almost everything we stand for, they said we were "admirable" and "showed integrity" in trying to persuade other creationists not to use bad arguments. Who knows what sort of witness this could be? We know of many people, outside and inside of the church, who will no longer even look at or consider the authority of the Bible in Genesis, in its history, cosmology, etc. because of bad experiences with blatant pseudo-arguments applied by enthusiasts who had been fed creationist non-arguments.

    From What About Carl Baugh? by Dr. Don Batten of Answers in Genesis, 1996:

    Muddying the water?

    It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.

    Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.

    We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like Carl Baugh, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!

    By Robert Morphis from his web site, What Harm is done by Creation Science? (no longer exists):
    The main downfall of Creation Science is that it is combined with a belief in YEC, and generally with a belief that YEC is required for salvation.

    Because of this the evidence suggests that those who ascribe to Creation Science, esp. those who promote it, tend to:

    • Drive Christians to become atheists, agnostics and deists,
    • Become severely self-deluded and/or morally degenerate,
    • Engage in slander.

    "We don't know why the evidence is the way it is but we believe in the literal understanding of Genesis." may be a tougher line to teach than "the worldly, atheistic scientists are all in a conspiracy / brainwashed / blinded by the devil" but if

    • you believe that a literal reading of Gen 1 is required
    • you wish to avoid bearing false witness and
    • you don't want to create atheists
    I strongly recommend it.

    . . .

    It has been my experience in talking to agnostics and atheists that many were raised in fundamentalist churches and that the denial of the physical evidence that those churches engaged in was a significant reason for them leaving Christ.

    By Scott Rauch, a former young-earth creationist:
    "I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed."

    A Short History of This Web Site:

    As I said, I started studying "creation science" in 1981. After half a decade of study, I opened a CompuServe account in 1988 and started discussing "creation science" on-line in the Science & Religion section of the Religion Forum. My discussions led me to writing a few articles which I posted in that section's library. By 1997, CompuServe's massive changes in their interface had rendered their service completely unusable and I had to drop my account.

    In 1997, America On-Line started offering website hosting services to its members. I started my own web site primarily in order to learn HTML, but also to repost my CompuServe library articles. I slowly added more content which I wrote in "my copious spare time" (an engineering inside joke, since we're kept so busy that we have no spare time), which meant during my lunch hour. I also wrote on other subjects which I segregated into a few different AOL screen names as a convenient organizing tool.

    Then on 31 October 2008, AOL abruptly eliminated its web hosting service -- I think I got one or two weeks notice. I would keep all my web content on my own computer and upload it to the web server, so I didn't lose any content, but I had nowhere to post it -- again, very little spare time in which to research my options. After a few years, I found a web hosting service and started putting my site back up on-line. Since I'll be reorganizing it, reverifying links, and making changes I was wanting to make, things will be fragmentary for a while, but we'll eventually get there.

    Where My Name Came From

    Just in case you want to follow Kent Hovind's example and pick a fight with me over "DWise1", read the following information first:

    Over the years, most especially in on-line "creation/evolution" discussions, creationists have often engaged in personal attacks against me just because of my AOL screen name, "DWise1". In fact, one infamous professional creationist, Kent Hovind, went so far as to twice attempt (via email) to pick a fight with me over my screen name in order to avoid answering a very simple question about one of his claims, namely what his source was. I informed him that the story behind that name is really very mundane and has nothing to do with what he was railing against and I presented it to him.

    So then why "DWise1"? Here is the story:

    In every multi-user computer system, there are corporate policies for assigning user names. One common one is to append the first letter of the first name to the beginning of the first n letters of the last name (since there's always a limit to the length of the user name), adding numeric digits if the resultant user name has already been assigned. For example, one Dilbert comic depicted a "Brenda Utthead" complaining about the user name they had assigned her.

    When I went to work at Hughes Aircraft in 1985, that was their policy, so my user name was "dwise". At the same time, they had bought some of the first Macs, non-networked floppy systems which we used to combine text and graphics in our presentation visuals. To identify my data floppy, I labelled it with my user name, "dwise". Then when I had filled that one and start on a second data diskette, I labeled that one "dwise2" and, for symmetry, I relabelled the first one, "dwise1". Then one day a co-worker read the label of the dwise1 diskette and started to laugh. I didn't get the joke until he told me to read it out loud; up until then I had not realized that it sounded like "The Wise One" and we all had a good laugh over the unintentional pun.

    Then when I signed up for AOL several years later, in the middle of the sign-up process I suddenly had to think up a screen name. All I could think of was that accidental pun and so chose "DWise1" as my screen name.

    Well, there you have the story. Nothing at all to it. And others have also chosen that name, albeit on other domains, of course -- in each domain there can be only one of any user name.

    Share and enjoy!

    Go to DWise1's Main Site

    Contact me.

    First uploaded on 1997 June 26.
    Last updated on 2016 August 26.