The REAL shame of creationism: its fradulent spokemen

Washington

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2003
5,092
358
Washington state
✟7,305.00
Faith
Agnostic
Creationists are well known to bend the facts and ignore embarrassing ones in order to make their case. Such duplicity is not only committed by the scientifically untrained layman, but by credentialed scientists as well. Unfortunately, when scientists or even those with advanced degrees outside science do this people tend to listen more carefully to their remarks, unfounded as they may be. Creationists with PhDs particularly lend a degree of respectability to their cause, such as Michael Behe (biochemistry), William Dembski (philosophy), Duane Gish (biochemistry), and Phillip Johnson (law). Even those with only a BSc, such as Ken Ham (Applied Science), derive a bit more respect than creation promulgators who lack a degree, such as Buddy Davis, Stan Lutz, and Ian Juby. Unfortunately, there are those in the movement who not only play fast and loose with the facts, but go so far as to misrepresent themselves in order to garner more respect for their deceit. I don't know if this is a result of an innate lack of ethics (one would think a professing Christian would be reticent to display such a moral short coming) or simply an outgrowth of the dishonesty that infuses creationism. In any case there are a number of creationists who have sought to trade on the respectability of a degree they never earned.


Probably the best known of these is Kent Hovind, who passes himself off as having a PhD. Calling himself Dr. Dino, Hovind claims to have earned his doctorate in Christian Education. But the school from which he "graduated" was an unaccredited correspondence diploma mill, Patriot University, in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado). The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and even "Doctor of Ministry" degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $25 -$45 per month. (source) Moreover, Hovind never completed his "PhD thesis." In truth, Hovind no more has a right to claim a PhD, which he does, than does Elmer Fudd.

Another creationist who traded on a fraudulent academic degree is "Dr." Clifford Burdick. Burdick is an interesting case because he actively sought a legitimate advanced college degree, but when unable to fulfill the requirements, he simply assumed a bogus one from a bogus school. Here is his story by Lenny Flank, reprinted in part from HERE

One of the most widely-cited instances of evolutionist "censorship" of creationists involves "Dr" Clifford Burdick, a geologist for the Creation Research Society and Institute for Creation Research. Burdick, the story goes, was arbitrarily refused a PhD from the University of Arizona solely because he is a creationist (Burdick was the original discoverer of the "Cretaceous human footprints" at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas).​
The true story demonstrates otherwise. In 1960, Burdick, who had never been admitted to a degree-granting program, sat for his comprehensive exam for a PhD in geology. As Burdick himself later reported, "I 'browned out' several times during the exam, and could not answer even the most simple questions, that I knew as well as my own name. Even at that I was told I passed as far as knowledge of geology went, but I just ran out of gas and could not answer the reasoning questions, and being sick did not make too good an impression." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 260) Burdick failed the exam.​
After filing and losing a lawsuit charging the university with religious discrimination, Burdick went to the Creation Research Society and told them the story. CRS President Walter Lammerts investigated, and found that, not only had Burdick also failed an earlier attempt to defend his MS thesis, ("The medicine I was taking seemed to paralyze my thinking apparatus," Burdick explained (Numbers, 1992, p. 261)) but he had also never received a Masters Degree that he claimed from the University of Wisconsin. At the same time, Lammerts was investigating the claim of David Warriner, a CRS member, who had recently lost his untenured position at Michigan State University. After looking into both matters, Lammerts concluded, "Though perhaps it is unfair to say so, I believe that most of the difficulties which have been related such as those of Warriner and Burdick are largely due to other personal problems." (Numbers, 1992, p. 270) Lammerts advised Burdick to drop the matter.​
Instead, Burdick obtained a doctorate from something called the "University of Physical Sciences" in Phoenix, Arizona. Lammerts discovered that the "University" consisted of nothing more than a post office box, with no faculty, no campus, and no tuition fees. Outraged, the CRS demanded that Burdick stop using the "Doctor" title on his CRS papers.​
Burdick referred to himself as Dr.--and allowed others to do so---for quite some time. And he is still referred to as "Dr." by creationists. Examples: HERE and HERE






Other prominent creationists who have played fast and loose with academic credentials are
Thomas Barnes, formerly affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research,​
Carl Baugh
Richard Bliss, formerly a member of the ICR staff,​
John Grebe, a founding member of the Creation Research Society​
Don Patton
Kelly Segraves, co-founder of the Creation-Science Research Center​
Harold Slusher, formerly of the Institute for Creation Research​
All in all a pretty sad indictment of the creationist movement.
 

Elduran

Disruptive influence
May 19, 2005
1,773
64
41
✟9,830.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Interestingly enough, I believe it's actually illegal in this country to claim to be a doctor without a PhD or medical degree from a recognised/accredited university. Someone else who claimed a PhD via a diploma mill was recently ordered by a judge to cease using the title "Doctor" in all her publications and adverts because it constituted false advertisement!

Maybe you should consider proposing a similar law? ;)
 
Upvote 0

Washington

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2003
5,092
358
Washington state
✟7,305.00
Faith
Agnostic
Interestingly enough, I believe it's actually illegal in this country to claim to be a doctor without a PhD or medical degree from a recognised/accredited university. Someone else who claimed a PhD via a diploma mill was recently ordered by a judge to cease using the title "Doctor" in all her publications and adverts because it constituted false advertisement!

Maybe you should consider proposing a similar law? ;)
I certainly think someone should. I don't have the time.
 
Upvote 0

NPH

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2005
3,771
612
✟6,871.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
FYI, Dembski has recently been caught out plagiarizing someone else's work with no respect for copyright. He claimed not to be aware that the work he was using was copyrighted and altered but that has been shown to be a lie of his: http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/12/discovery-institute-dembski-copyright.html

A thief and dishonest when caught in it to boot. What an inspiration to creationists everywhere, forget those silly commandments and 'moral' behavior.
 
Upvote 0

Washington

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2003
5,092
358
Washington state
✟7,305.00
Faith
Agnostic
FYI, Dembski has recently been caught out plagiarizing someone else's work with no respect for copyright. He claimed not to be aware that the work he was using was copyrighted and altered but that has been shown to be a lie of his: http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/12/discovery-institute-dembski-copyright.html

A thief and dishonest when caught in it to boot. What an inspiration to creationists everywhere, forget those silly commandments and 'moral' behavior.
That's a great find. Thanks for the heads up. Just one more glimpse into the lack of ethics within the creationist leadership.
 
Upvote 0
The REAL shame of creationism: its fradulent spokemen.

At one time I believed that everyone was responsible for their own actions, I have since been persuaded otherwise,
some people just can not think for themselves, their upbringing will not allow it,
if they were told by their parents something was true, for them it's true and always will be, no question.

So to say the spokesmen are at fault I don't think is quite true, some of them must believe what they are saying,
unless of course they are obviously only in it for the money, like Hovind, a real shyster,
if someone like that can get hold of people, the damage he can do is immense.

The problem I think stems from the people who want to believe, their need is so great they will believe anything FOR their belief,
and reject everything AGAINST, blindly, if an obvious idiot told them something, they would believe it without question,
because it's what they want to hear, and if the President stood up and said it was untrue they would not believe him,
because it's not what they want to hear.

It ends up at a point where the truth is irrelevant, the argument is either for or against, if it's for, believe it, if it's against, reject it,
no matter how stupid or ridiculous that argument is,
that is the only way to understand why people will believe the obvious liars out there, what other reason can there be?
in fact reason has been abandoned altogether.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟14,982.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour

It is very difficult for scientists to lie and get away with it. Practically any example of a scientist lying will have been exposed by another scientist.

I would imagine that you will find it impossible to find an example of a real scientific fraud being uncovered by a creationist.

This is because the processes of peer review and repeatability of results makes it almost impossible for a scientific lie to go unexposed.

As a matter of interest not one of "your" examples of scientific fraud are in fact examples of scientific fraud, why am I not suprised?

1) Al Gore. Isn't committing a scientific fraud or lying; he is popularising the mainstream views in the global warming debate. There is no controversy at all about global warming, the world is undoubtedly warming, what is debated is the extent of man's influence on this. Neither side is lying at the moment the point is moot.

2) The NY board of health banning trans fats has got nothing to do with scientists lying, it is entirely to do with taking health legislation far beyond the scientific evidence.

3) The predictions of NOAA being wrong for the 2006 hurricane season being wrong wasn't a lie, it was a poorly modelled prediction. The clue is in the word prediction, I suggest you look it up in a dictionary.

4) The use, banning and unbanning of DDT has nothing to do with scientists lying and everything to do with politicians interpreting the scientific evidence they are given in ways that suit them. DDT is undoubtedly useful in driving out malaria carrying mosquitos in malarial areas, its over use and use in non malarial areas is rightly curtailed due to its propensity to increase in concentration up the food chain. This is a secondary concern in areas where malaria is rife.

5) Cosmic rays and there effects on climate change isn't a case of scientists lying it is a case of scientists finding it hard to get their research popularised in the current zeitgeist. The fact that we are now discussing this evidence proves that this is not a case of scientific fraud or lies.

6) Stem cells. This alludes to a case of real scientific fraud in Korea, that was uncovered by fellow scientists naturally, but seems to pertain to attempts by congress to try and start stem cell research in the US. This seems to be more about the abortion debate in the US than science per se.

7) Low fat diet myth busted. Most scientifically trained nutritionists will tell you that a balanced diet is what humans should eat. It is not so much low fat diets that are important but the types of fat that you are eating. This has long been known, sometimes it takes a while for the mainstream media to catch up. This, again, wasn't a case of scientific lies but increased precision in research. It went from fats in the diet are bad for you to some sorts of fat in the diet is bad for you. It should also be noted that we do, in general, eat diets too high in fats for our own good.

8) The sighting, or not, of a woodpecker thought to be extinct is not a case of lying or fraud unless you can prove that those who claim to have spotted it are not correct or honestly mistaken.

9) The use or banning of cartoon characters to advertise food stuffs has absolutely nothing to do with science, let alone scientific fraud.

10) the cleanliness or otherwise of Californian air seems, in this case, to be a political problem. The linking of the better health of Californians despite their worse air pollution to a lack of a link between poor health and poor air quality seems to be the only bit of bad science in the whole article and that was committed by the JUNK Science web site.


I have to ask; do you even read your links before posting them or is it a comprehension problem?

I am absolutely baffled as to why you would think that you had posted the a link showing a scientific counter part to the generalised and ubiquitous lies that professional creationists routinely tell
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,155
51,515
Guam
✟4,910,186.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
They don't to anything like the extent creationists do. Creationists, basically, do nothing but lie when it comes to the origins issue.

Oh, so it's a matter of extent now?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,155
51,515
Guam
✟4,910,186.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As a matter of interest not one of "your" examples of scientific fraud are in fact examples of scientific fraud, why am I not suprised?

Oh, please do tell me what "scientific fraud" I espouse here, Baggins. In fact, please tell me any "science" I espouse here, fraudulent or otherwise.

q.v. Myth 10 here.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟14,982.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Oh, please do tell me what "scientific fraud" I espouse here, Baggins. In fact, please tell me any "science" I espouse here, fraudulent or otherwise.

q.v. Myth 10 here.

Then what on earth was the point of posting the link to Junk Science.

Sh1ts and giggles?
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
173
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,349.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Creationists are well known to bend the facts and ignore embarrassing ones in order to make their case. Such duplicity is not only committed by the scientifically untrained layman, but by credentialed scientists as well. Unfortunately, when scientists or even those with advanced degrees outside science do this people tend to listen more carefully to their remarks, unfounded as they may be. Creationists with PhDs particularly lend a degree of respectability to their cause, such as Michael Behe (biochemistry), William Dembski (philosophy), Duane Gish (biochemistry), and Phillip Johnson (law). Even those with only a BSc, such as Ken Ham (Applied Science), derive a bit more respect than creation promulgators who lack a degree, such as Buddy Davis, Stan Lutz, and Ian Juby. Unfortunately, there are those in the movement who not only play fast and loose with the facts, but go so far as to misrepresent themselves in order to garner more respect for their deceit. I don't know if this is a result of an innate lack of ethics (one would think a professing Christian would be reticent to display such a moral short coming) or simply an outgrowth of the dishonesty that infuses creationism. In any case there are a number of creationists who have sought to trade on the respectability of a degree they never earned.


Probably the best known of these is Kent Hovind, who passes himself off as having a PhD. Calling himself Dr. Dino, Hovind claims to have earned his doctorate in Christian Education. But the school from which he "graduated" was an unaccredited correspondence diploma mill, Patriot University, in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado). The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and even "Doctor of Ministry" degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $25 -$45 per month. (source) Moreover, Hovind never completed his "PhD thesis." In truth, Hovind no more has a right to claim a PhD, which he does, than does Elmer Fudd.

Another creationist who traded on a fraudulent academic degree is "Dr." Clifford Burdick. Burdick is an interesting case because he actively sought a legitimate advanced college degree, but when unable to fulfill the requirements, he simply assumed a bogus one from a bogus school. Here is his story by Lenny Flank, reprinted in part from HERE

One of the most widely-cited instances of evolutionist "censorship" of creationists involves "Dr" Clifford Burdick, a geologist for the Creation Research Society and Institute for Creation Research. Burdick, the story goes, was arbitrarily refused a PhD from the University of Arizona solely because he is a creationist (Burdick was the original discoverer of the "Cretaceous human footprints" at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas).​
The true story demonstrates otherwise. In 1960, Burdick, who had never been admitted to a degree-granting program, sat for his comprehensive exam for a PhD in geology. As Burdick himself later reported, "I 'browned out' several times during the exam, and could not answer even the most simple questions, that I knew as well as my own name. Even at that I was told I passed as far as knowledge of geology went, but I just ran out of gas and could not answer the reasoning questions, and being sick did not make too good an impression." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 260) Burdick failed the exam.​
After filing and losing a lawsuit charging the university with religious discrimination, Burdick went to the Creation Research Society and told them the story. CRS President Walter Lammerts investigated, and found that, not only had Burdick also failed an earlier attempt to defend his MS thesis, ("The medicine I was taking seemed to paralyze my thinking apparatus," Burdick explained (Numbers, 1992, p. 261)) but he had also never received a Masters Degree that he claimed from the University of Wisconsin. At the same time, Lammerts was investigating the claim of David Warriner, a CRS member, who had recently lost his untenured position at Michigan State University. After looking into both matters, Lammerts concluded, "Though perhaps it is unfair to say so, I believe that most of the difficulties which have been related such as those of Warriner and Burdick are largely due to other personal problems." (Numbers, 1992, p. 270) Lammerts advised Burdick to drop the matter.​
Instead, Burdick obtained a doctorate from something called the "University of Physical Sciences" in Phoenix, Arizona. Lammerts discovered that the "University" consisted of nothing more than a post office box, with no faculty, no campus, and no tuition fees. Outraged, the CRS demanded that Burdick stop using the "Doctor" title on his CRS papers.​
Burdick referred to himself as Dr.--and allowed others to do so---for quite some time. And he is still referred to as "Dr." by creationists. Examples: HERE and HERE








Other prominent creationists who have played fast and loose with academic credentials are
Thomas Barnes, formerly affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research,​
Carl Baugh
Richard Bliss, formerly a member of the ICR staff,​
John Grebe, a founding member of the Creation Research Society​
Don Patton
Kelly Segraves, co-founder of the Creation-Science Research Center​
Harold Slusher, formerly of the Institute for Creation Research​
All in all a pretty sad indictment of the creationist movement.
The real issue with creationists is that they are working independently for the most part. Evolutionists, teach, train, indocrinate, encourage, investigate, etc.; in large groups. They prop each other up and build on the ideas of their colleagues and are funded through educational system grants to those ends.

The creationist must first move beyond the concern that an associate is even saved before he is willing to associate with him.... They do not wish to promote what is anti-biblical, and so they study and reread the Holy Scripture to see if they are headed towards a possible "consideration"....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Washington

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2003
5,092
358
Washington state
✟7,305.00
Faith
Agnostic
The real issue with creationists is that they are working independently for the most part. Evolutionists, teach, train, indocrinate, encourage, investigate, etc.; in large groups. They prop each other up and build on the ideas of their colleagues and are funded through educational system grants to those ends.

The creationist must first move beyond the concern that an associate is even saved before he is willing to associate with him.... They do not wish to promote what is anti-biblical, and so they study and reread the Holy Scripture to see if they are headed towards a possible "consideration"....
Okay; although, I'm not sure what this has to do with the subject of the OP.
 
Upvote 0