Statements of Faith the Bias of creationist groups

I sometimes hear about how evolutionists ignore evidence. Although I have yet to see an example of an evolutionist ignoring valid evidence, I thought I would look at whether creationist groups ignore evidence or not. This obviously doesn't mean that their theories or their evidence is false, that is for another discussion.

Many groups have statements of faith, statements that their members must make to be members. I wanted to look at how honest or scientific these are.

1) AiG (Answers in Genesis)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...bout/faith.asp
"6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

AiG's statement of faith is that no evidence is any field can be valid if it contradicts their interpretation of scripture because evidence is interpreted by fallible people.

So AiG has decided that they are infallible when they interpret the bible, and that no matter how much evidence against their views are found in God's creation they will ignore it.



2) CEM (Creation Evidence Museum)
http://www.creationevidence.org/gene...o/mission.html
"The entity thus holds to:
•A recent special creation by the personal Creator
•A literal six-day creation
•Biblical inerrancy and compatibility with scientific facts
•An original orchestrated universal design for the benefit of man, made originally in the image of the Creator
•The continuing concern of the Creator God in providing man's redemption and the ultimate restoration of an orchestrated universe, consistent with the creation model"

CEM is not as bad as AiG when it comes to their statement of faith, however this still means they will refuse anything that doesn't fit their pre concieved ideas. Not the best way to do science.



3) CRS (Creation Research Society)
http://www.creationresearch.org/belief_wndw.htm
"All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior."

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html
"•Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists."
"Individuals who agree with the Society's "Statement of faith" are encouraged to join the Creation Research Society"

CRS claims to have a peer reviewed section, yet they require everyone on this review board to agree with their conclusion before they can review any papers.


4) ICR (Institute for Creation Research)
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
"More explicitly, the administration and faculty of ICR are committed to the tenets of both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism as formulated below."

"•Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variation) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions)."
"•The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and fall of man, the curse on the creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human govemment) and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel."

Finally ICR. Nothing new from the rest, All of their faculty and administration must accept that their conclusions are true before they can be part of ICR, this includes teach their courses.


Conclusion

I can understand part of the statement of faith, these are christian groups and thus it makes sense for them to have a christian statement of faith. However if these groups want to claim to be promoting honesty and science they should not include their conclusions in their faith statements.

Creationists often claim that evolutionists are biased and that this bias is a bad thing, some even go so far as to use it as evidence against evolution. Yet when you look back at the creationist groups you find that many of the top groups are biased. How can these groups practice science or honesty if they are willing to throw out evidence just because they don't like it?

-Ari

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

Out-of-context Richard Lewontin quote in 5, 4, 3...

__________________
Lung transplant: $500K. Rejection drugs: $25k/year. Being denied a life-saving operation because "it would be too risky": Priceless. Read about my bizarre fight with the healthcare bureaucrats at Save-Allan.org!

This could not be more wrong. Everyone is biased. It is FAR MORE honest and requires FAR MORE integrity to state your bias up front rather than purposely promote a charade of 'neutrality'. I have FAR MORE respect for evolutionists who admit that they INTEND to exclude God.


My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious; many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood. ~ William Provine

__________________
If it is evolutionism, it is not science. If it is scence, it is not evolutionism.

Bevets can you like......think for yourself? All you do is quote other people!

Ahhhh...

Attached Thumbnails

 

One thing both me and creationists agree on: Ignorance is bliss.

__________________
Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."

Did you know he has a page about misquotes of creationists?

And then there was the surreal conversation a while back where he posted a lot of out of context quotes, then someone else posted a list of deliberately out of context quotes by creationists, then bevets accused him of dishonestly using quotes. Even when it was explained to him, he just didn't seem to be able to grasp the concept that the quotes were deliberately out of context to illuminate how silly Bevets was being.

__________________
Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."

LOL

Yeah, I'm a lurker over at fark.com where Bevets often makes an appearence in the religious flamewar threads. All he does is post some quotes, other people rip them apart, then he posts more quotes, other people rip those apart and so on and so on. I'm glad he hasn't changed tactics over here, it does have a certain entertainment value

I've also visted his website, funny stuff

Here is the thread you have referred to:
http://www.christianforums.com/t95575&page=3

The problem people have with my quotes is that they are accurate. They can not attack the integrity of the quote so they resort to ad hominem attack on the quoter.

The problem I was addressing in the previous thread, was the dishonest implication that quotes in the OP were out of context without making any effort to DEMONSTRATE that the quotes actually were out of context.

__________________
If it is evolutionism, it is not science. If it is scence, it is not evolutionism.