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

Andrewn said:

This attitude is selfish (worshipping your own point of view) and judgmental (denigrating other people and putting them down).

Click to expand...

Oh i have consideration for others, i just do not agree with them. And i am not doing this for money or pleasure

d taylor said:

The majority of christian also believe in some form of work/obedience based salvation.

Click to expand...

So do you. In addition to faith in Christ, you require certain eccentric and difficult to sustain beliefs about the Bible for salvation. In fact, in terms of a dependency towards works/obedience based salvation, I would say that yours is more exacting than that of most Christians.

Speedwell said:

So do you. In addition to faith in Christ, you require certain eccentric and difficult to sustain beliefs about the Bible for salvation. In fact, in terms of a dependency towards works/obedience based salvation, I would say that yours is more exacting than that of most Christians.

Click to expand...

Find one post by me stating that believing etc.. about Gods creation is required for a person to receive Eternal Life.

d taylor said:

Find one post by me stating that believing etc.. about Gods creation is required for a person to receive Eternal Life.

Click to expand...

You certainly seem to require it for yourself, and I think you know full well that stating overtly that it was a requirement for salvation would be a violation of the ToS. My point, however, was that you are in no position to sneeringly impute belief in works salvation to Christians whose faith you know little or nothing about.

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.

Click to expand...

True, yet the debate continues and draws the two together like a hand and glove. I think everyone debates it at some point in their life, regardless of their qualifications. The thing I find the most frustrating is not getting hit with contradictory evidence (because the interpretation of said evidence can usually be questioned), but that evolutionists can claim creationism is not science (which it’s not), yet creationists can’t claim evolution a belief (despite it not being ‘proven’ or ‘absolute truth’ as you even acknowledge). Creationists are hamstrung right out of the gate… don’t you think?

pitabread said:

It makes as much sense to call evolution a belief as it does to call gravity a belief.

Click to expand...

My point is, you claim on the one hand that creation vs. evolution is apples and oranges. On the other hand, you’re here, you want to debate, but you insist the apple must debate from the oranges’ perspective and on his terms.

inquiring mind said:

True, yet the debate continues and draws the two together like a hand and glove. I think everyone debates it at some point in their life, regardless of their qualifications. The thing I find the most frustrating is not getting hit with contradictory evidence (because the interpretation of said evidence can usually be questioned), but that evolutionists can claim creationism is not science (which it’s not), yet creationists can’t claim evolution a belief (despite it not being ‘proven’ or ‘absolute truth’ as you even acknowledge). Creationists are hamstrung right out of the gate… don’t you think?

Click to expand...

No. Just because it is not "proven" or "absolute truth" doesn't mean it is without plausible content or evidentiary foundation. But that brings us back to the OP: In my opinion, if creationists are hamstrung by anything it is in not knowing what the theory of evolution actually claims and on what evidence those claims rest.

inquiring mind said:

My point is, you claim on the one hand that creation vs. evolution is apples and oranges. On the other hand, you’re here, you want to debate, but you insist the apple must debate from the oranges’ perspective and on his terms.

Click to expand...

No, we are merely suggesting that if you are an apple debating an orange, it is best to be aware that it is an orange which you are debating, rather than a peach or a plum.

pitabread said:

I took a look at that site. One of the first things I clicked on was this article here: TESTING EVOLUTION: What are evolutionists testing when they claim evolution is a fact because it can be tested?

Unfortunately it's rife with misrepresentation of science and evolution. It starts with a bizarre anecdote by which the author claims that evolution isn't being "tested" (scientifically):

When I was a student at University I took up Genetics to find out how living things work, but our professor was the first to admit that: a) the geneticists didn’t know how evolution happened, b) the evidence was not observed in genetics, and c) he believed in evolution because the geologists had the fossils to show it had happened.

But as a geology student I had a paleo professor who had also been the first to concede that there wasn’t any evidence in geology, so he believed in evolution because of the expertise of other scientists such as geneticist and organic chemists.

In other words, if anybody did bother to test anything they were experts in, they always found that there was no evidence in their own specialisation. So to bluntly and politically incorrectly answer your question,’ what are they testing?’ The answer is Nothing!​

The author goes on to claim that evolution is "never derived from the data at all... ever!".

I suspect that this story is made up as I can't fathom any competent professors claiming that the history of life on Earth is not testable. I'm always wary of "anonymous professor/expert"-style anecdotes.

It also doesn't help that I've read material from scientists (books, research papers, etc.) and taken University courses myself that demonstrate the precise opposite: evolution, like every scientific theory, is subject to hypothesis testing via the standard scientific method (hypothesis -> prediction -> observation).

This site appears to be another bog standard creationist source that includes blatant misrepresentations of science, the scientific method, and respective fields of study.

edited to add:

Looked up another article on that site and found this gem:

If anything, speciation is the opposite of evolution. Whenever a large and varied group of living creatures has been split into smaller and less variable sub-groups, regardless of the reason, each of the less viable (often called specialised) subgroups is more likely to die out if the environment changes. This is because natural selection, (another real but non-evolutionary process), will eliminate any organism that does not have the appropriate genetic variations needed to survive in the new environment.​

SPECIATION? Is speciation a fact, and does this prove evolution?

I don't even know where to begin with statements like this. Claiming that speciation isn't an example of evolution or that natural selection is a "non-evolutionary" process... aside from being factually incorrect, it's just plain bizarre.

Click to expand...

The Lie of Evolution and the Truth of God’s Word

Molecular Geneticist: Faith and Evolution Are at Odds, but Not Faith and Science

pitabread said:

Yes, AiG is another site that blatantly mischaracterizes science and evolution.

I'm already well familiar with the sites that get it wrong. I'm looking to see if any creationist sources actually get it *right*.

Do you have any of the latter? If not, then you're wasting your time.

Click to expand...

Dr Georgia Purdom

pitabread said:

Yes, AiG is another site that blatantly mischaracterizes science and evolution.

I'm already well familiar with the sites that get it wrong. I'm looking to see if any creationist sources actually get it *right*.

Do you have any of the latter? If not, then you're wasting your time.

Click to expand...

19th century geologist and lawyer Charles Lyell (1797–1875) is renowned for popularizing the idea that the world’s geology reflected an old age of the earth (i.e. much older than the Bible’s 6,000-year timeframe of history), thus paving the way and providing some traction for Charles Darwin’s evolutionary ideas.

But was Charles Lyell truly viewing the rocks from a scientifically objective perspective?

In his private correspondence, Lyell admitted to the strongly anti-biblical (“anti-Mosaical”) nature of his ideas. In 1829, just a few months prior to the publication of the first volume of his Principles of Geology, Lyell wrote, in a letter to fellow old-earth geologist Roderick Murchison:
Lyell’s ideas on geology influenced Charles Darwin to think in terms of millions of years, paving the way for his theory of evolution. (Image from Voyage that Shook the World)
I trust I shall make my sketch of the progress of geology popular. Old [Rev. John] Fleming is frightened and thinks the age will not stand my anti-Mosaical conclusions and at least that the subject will for a time become unpopular and awkward for the clergy, but I am not afraid. I shall out with the whole but in as conciliatory a manner as possible.The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin, Master Books, Inc., P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638, USA, 2004, pp. 225–226, citing Brooke, J., “The Natural Theology of the Geologists: Some Theological Strata”, in Jordanova, L. and Porter, R., Images of the Earth (British Society for the History of Science, Monograph 1, 1979), p. 45."

Edward Bailey’s biography of Charles Lyell writes that at that time, “A few days in Paris allowed Lyell to enjoy a lecture by Prévost ‘on diluvium and caves, a good logical refutation of the diluvian humbug’.”British men of science: Charles Lyell, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, London, Great Britain, 1962 p. 75."

By the following year, we see that Charles Lyell has a clear agenda, i.e. to “free the science from Moses”.3 That is what Lyell wrote on 14th June 1830 in a letter to George Poulett Scrope:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

Lyell’s secretive scheming not only deceived the church to accept his false ideas that undermined the Gospel, but he set geology on a wrong path for over a century
P.S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin, Master Books, Inc., P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638, USA, 2004, pp. 226–227, citing Lyell, Katherine (Lyell’s sister-in-law), Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart. (London: Murray, 1881), .268–271."
Lyell, the lawyer par excellence, was involved, not in scientific investigation but political game playing to ensure his uniformitarian ideas would be accepted by the church, even though he knew they clearly contradicted the plain teaching of Scripture.the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence”. Lecture II at King’s College London on 4 May 1832—quoted in Rudwick, Martin J.S., Charles Lyell Speaks in the Lecture Theatre, The British Journal for the History of Science 9(2):147–155, 1976, DOI:10.1017/S0007087400014734. Such a view might be reasonable if the Bible did not describe any events relating to the formation of rocks on earth. But the Bible does speak of such events, i.e. Creation Week and the Flood. Thus Lyell’s approach is like trying to write a history of British settlement in Australia in the 1700s by merely studying surviving buildings and other remnant artifacts around Sydney but intentionally ignoring written eyewitness testimony from that time. Or like writing about the life of Jesus on earth without reference to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
Lyell’s secretive scheming not only deceived the church to accept his false ideas that undermined the Gospel, but he set geology on a wrong path for over a century, as geologists now recognize:

“Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that … all past processes acted at essentially their current rates (that is, those observed in historical time). This extreme gradualism has led to numerous unfortunate consequences, including the rejection of sudden or catastrophic events in the face of positive evidence for them, for no reason other than that they were not gradual.” Science 262:122–123, October 1, 1993. Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution in Ithaca, NY, and Adjunct Associate Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University, was reviewing Ager, D., The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1993."