Are there any creationist resources (sites, books) to do not misrepresent science and evolution?

pitabread · Jan 10, 2021

A common theme among creationist sources is misrepresentations of science and specific theories within science (especially the Theory of Evolution).

I'd be curious to see if it's possible for a creationist criticism of science and evolution while at the same time representing it in a fair and accurate manner. I'm wondering if has anyone ever come across any creationist sources that do present an accurate picture of how science functions and of the scientific theories in question.

As an example of what this looks like, I suggest reading the works of Todd Wood. He is a young Earth creationist with a biology degree who generally portrays science and evolution quite fairly and accurately. I'm curious if there are any other creationist resources along those lines.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 10, 2021

pitabread said:
A common theme among creationist sources is misrepresentations of science and specific theories within science (especially the Theory of Evolution).

I'd be curious to see if it's possible for a creationist criticism of science and evolution while at the same time representing it in a fair and accurate manner. I'm wondering if has anyone ever come across any creationist sources that do present an accurate picture of how science functions and of the scientific theories in question.

I'm sure I've seen critical articles on sites that were fair and accurate to the extent of fairly and accurately representing the science; but I couldn't say if there was a whole site of that kind.

pitabread · Jan 10, 2021

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
I'm sure I've seen critical articles on sites that were fair and accurate to the extent of fairly and accurately representing the science; but I couldn't say if there was a whole site of that kind.

Do you have examples? I know there are possibly a handful of creationists (Todd Wood comes to mind) that seem more likely to represent science and evolution fairly. I'd be curious to see who is out there.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 10, 2021

pitabread said:
Do you have examples? I know there are possibly a handful of creationists (Todd Wood comes to mind) that seem more likely to represent science and evolution fairly. I'd be curious to see who is out there.

Nothing to hand - I just recall reading the occasional article that seemed accurate on the science - but bogus on why it was wrong.

J_B_ · Jan 10, 2021

pitabread said:
A common theme among creationist sources is misrepresentations of science and specific theories within science (especially the Theory of Evolution).

I'd be curious to see if it's possible for a creationist criticism of science and evolution while at the same time representing it in a fair and accurate manner. I'm wondering if has anyone ever come across any creationist sources that do present an accurate picture of how science functions and of the scientific theories in question.

I'm not sure what you're thinking that would look like.

pitabread · Jan 10, 2021

J_B_ said:
I'm not sure what you're thinking that would look like.

The closest I can think of would be the writings of Todd Wood. He's one of the few creationists I've seen--actually the only one--who is willing to give credence to the scientific theory of evolution and give an honest assessment of the need of creationists to provide satisfactory explanations of their own.

J_B_ · Jan 10, 2021

pitabread said:
The closest I can think of would be the writings of Todd Wood.

I've not heard of him before this ... though a quick search showed he has a blog. Does he only offer criticism, or does he also offer an alternative?

pitabread · Jan 10, 2021

J_B_ said:
I've not heard of him before this ... though a quick search showed he has a blog. Does he only offer criticism, or does he also offer an alternative?

I know he's interested in and has written about creationist baraminology (e.g. the categorization of organisms by "kinds").

Some of his writings are published here: Search | Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences

Speedwell · Jan 10, 2021

J_B_ said:
I've not heard of him before this ... though a quick search showed he has a blog. Does he only offer criticism, or does he also offer an alternative?

You mean this?

The truth about evolution

It's not a criticism, just an observation by a creationist who also understands the theory of evolution and the evidence on which it it is based.

J_B_ · Jan 10, 2021

pitabread said:
I know he's interested in and has written about creationist baraminology (e.g. the categorization of organisms by "kinds").

Some of his writings are published here: Search | Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences

OK. And you found that ... ?

Honestly, it would first take an acknowledgement that evolution is not absolute truth. Maybe you're already there, it's just that I know what it was like to be on the "inside" of a particular scientific discipline where aggressive debate occurred about the flaws of the discipline. The same probably happens in biology, but I'm not an insider. From my vantage point, all I see are circled wagons.

J_B_ · Jan 10, 2021

Speedwell said:
You mean this?

The truth about evolution

It's not a criticism, just an observation by a creationist who also understands the theory of evolution and the evidence on which it it is based.

Yeah, that's what my search found.

Monksailor · Jan 10, 2021

You could go to: About CRS
I wrote a thesis once for which their objective data and research proved quite valuable. The individual which provided most of my topic specific data was Duane T. Gish and was, "known by many as the foremost creationist debater in the world." pasted from: Duane Gish - creation.com, also, "But Gish was famous, or notorious, principally on account of his debates with scientists, including such opponents as George Bakken, Kenneth R. Miller, Massimo Pigliucci, Kenneth Saladin, Michael Shermer, and William Thwaites." pasted from: Duane T. Gish dies | National Center for Science Education

By the way, if you wondering how "scientific" he was, "He has held key positions at Berkeley, Cornell University Medical College, and The Upjohn Company, where he collaborated with former Nobel Prize winners in various projects." pasted from: Duane Gish - creation.com and "Duane Gish, Ph.D. earned a B.S. degree in chemistry from UCLA and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from UC-Berkeley. He spent 18 years in biochemical research, including three years at Cornell University Medical College, four years at the Virus Laboratory, UC-Berkeley, and eleven years with the Upjohn Company." pasted from: https://counterbalance.org/bio/duaneg-frame.html

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 10, 2021

Monksailor said:
You could go to: About CRS
I wrote a thesis once for which their objective data and research proved quite valuable. The individual which provided most of my topic specific data was Duane T. Gish and was, "known by many as the foremost creationist debater in the world." pasted from: Duane Gish - creation.com, also, "But Gish was famous, or notorious, principally on account of his debates with scientists, including such opponents as George Bakken, Kenneth R. Miller, Massimo Pigliucci, Kenneth Saladin, Michael Shermer, and William Thwaites." pasted from: Duane T. Gish dies | National Center for Science Education

Gish is probably best known for the infamous 'Gish gallop' debating technique. I've seen a fair bit of his material, and it certainly justifies the use of the technique (i.e. I thought it uniformly poor); having said that, I haven't made a study of it.

Speedwell · Jan 10, 2021

J_B_ said:
OK. And you found that ... ?

Honestly, it would first take an acknowledgement that evolution is not absolute truth. Maybe you're already there, it's just that I know what it was like to be on the "inside" of a particular scientific discipline where aggressive debate occurred about the flaws of the discipline. The same probably happens in biology, but I'm not an insider. From my vantage point, all I see are circled wagons.

No scientific theory is taken as "absolute truth." Perhaps it might seem that way to an outsider whose favorite alternative explanation is being debunked, but if you want to replace evolution as a scientific theory you need to have a better scientific theory. The fact is, that biblical creationism is not science. it rests on an entirely different epistemological foundation than science. Even if creationists were right about our origins and scientists wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science.

Monksailor · Jan 10, 2021

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Gish is probably best known for the infamous 'Gish gallop' debating technique. I've seen a fair bit of his material, and it certainly justifies the use of the technique (i.e. I thought it uniformly poor); having said that, I haven't made a study of it.

You neither debated with him, either, I suppose.

J_B_ · Jan 10, 2021

Speedwell said:
No scientific theory is taken as "absolute truth." Perhaps it might seem that way to an outsider whose favorite alternative explanation is being debunked, but if you want to replace evolution as a scientific theory you need to have a better scientific theory. The fact is, that biblical creationism is not science. it rests on an entirely different epistemological foundation than science. Even if creationists were right about our origins and scientists wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science.

It's always good to ensure everyone's on the same page. For my part, regardless of what I may think of evolution, I don't see any benefit from a religious perspective for pursuing a scientific alternative to evolution.

Rather, the best that could be hoped for would be some biological equivalent to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

pitabread · Jan 10, 2021

Monksailor said:
I wrote a thesis once for which their objective data and research proved quite valuable. The individual which provided most of my topic specific data was Duane T. Gish

I'm familiar with Gish. He is one of those creationists that I would include when it comes to blatantly misrepresenting science and evolution.

Monksailor · Jan 10, 2021

pitabread said:
I'm familiar with Gish. He is one of those creationists that I would include when it comes to blatantly misrepresenting science and evolution.

You are surely entitled to your opinions.

Speedwell · Jan 10, 2021

J_B_ said:
It's always good to ensure everyone's on the same page. For my part, regardless of what I may think of evolution, I don't see any benefit from a religious perspective for pursuing a scientific alternative to evolution.

Rather, the best that could be hoped for would be some biological equivalent to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

From a religious perspective it's not a problem. The metaphysics have been well understood for 2500 years. It's really only biblical literalists who have a difficulty with it.

pitabread · Jan 10, 2021

J_B_ said:
OK. And you found that ... ?

I find his writings to be refreshing. I think they are ultimately for naught, but he does seem to approach creationism with a degree of intellectual earnestness that I find absent in a lot of creationists.

As an example, consider this quote from one of his posts (this is reference to critique of a paper by Dennis Venema):

This is supposed to be a discussion of Venema's paper, and my final judgment on that is that Venema has raised some extremely important issues that need to be addressed. We can't just shrug this stuff off and act like a common designer explains everything.

Venema's Genesis and the Genome

He seems like he wants genuine explanations in a creationist context that go beyond just "DesignerDidIt". I can applaud him for that.

Honestly, it would first take an acknowledgement that evolution is not absolute truth. Maybe you're already there, it's just that I know what it was like to be on the "inside" of a particular scientific discipline where aggressive debate occurred about the flaws of the discipline. The same probably happens in biology, but I'm not an insider. From my vantage point, all I see are circled wagons.

I think the "circled wagons" perception is largely due to the attacks on science education that has been so pervasive in the C/E debate.

The science of evolution is not absolute truth. But at the same time, it's certainly a robust scientific theory that has been bolstered by over 150 of years of biological research and has numerous practical applications.

If anyone wants to overturn it they are more than welcome, but they need to come up with something of equivalent explanatory power and scientific application. In the meantime, evolution remains the best (and only) scientific explanation on the table for explaining the diversity in the biosphere.

Are there any creationist resources (sites, books) to do not misrepresent science and evolution?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.

Well-Known Member

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.

Adopted child of God.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Adopted child of God.

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.

Well-Known Member

Adopted child of God.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads