
	Where results make sense

Topic: Creationists

In the News (Thu 10 Dec 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Most creationists also dispute scientific accounts of the origin of life, origin of the human species, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, the origin of the physical universe and a very small minority even support such ideas as modern geocentrism.
		Creationists consider their primary source to be the ancient Hebrew text describing creation according to Genesis.
		Creationists believe that a divine power created life, sometimes believing that every "kind" of living thing was separately "created", while naturalists believe life came into being or developed into different species through natural means.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Creationism (5157 words)

	The Talk.Origins Archive: Arguments against Creationism and Intelligent Design FAQs
		Creationists often argue that the origin of life (abiogenesis) is impossible using claims such as the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, and Borel's law disproves abiogenesis.
		Creationists often cite the bombardier beetle as an example of a creature that could not have evolved in a step-wise evolutionary manner.
		Creationist Kent Hovind has offered $250,000 for empirical proof of evolution, and claims that scientists' failure to collect shows that evolution is a religious belief without supporting evidence.
	www.talkorigins.org /origins/faqs-creationists.html (1971 words)

	A Brief History of the Modern American Creation Movement
		Nelson was a long-age creationist advocating a gap in the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11.
		Creationists are no exception..." The numerous schisms within the various creation groups and their inability to cooperate with each other is one reason why creationism has achieved such dismal success among both the educated public-at-large as well as in the courts (Wonderly, 1990).
		Creationists, on the other hand, often conclude that their ideas are being rejected, not on their merits, but because their conclusions are highly critical of a world view that they have concluded rests far more on belief than fact or reason, specifically naturalistic evolutionary theory (Johnson, 1990).
	www.asa3.org /ASA/resources/CMBergman.html (9220 words)

	Pharyngula::Tips for arguing with creationists
		A couple of years ago, though, I tussled with a creationist in a public forum, and I think there is a way to 'win' such a confrontation and still have some self-respect.
		Creationists, and Melquist was no exception, usually lecture to church groups; there's no way a lone evolutionist can be a good guy in such a situation.
		None of this threatens a âcreationistâ understanding, unless similar to the view of the Church vs. Galileo it is based on a wrong reading of the texts.
	pharyngula.org /index/weblog/comments/tips_for_arguing_with_creationists (2335 words)

	What is Creationism?
		Creationist ideas through history and non-creationist anti-evolutionism are not covered here (but see the "Further Reading" section).
		Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they still base their beliefs on the Bible.
		Progressive Creationists generally believe that God created "kinds" of organisms sequentially, in the order seen in the fossil record, but say that the newer kinds are specially created, not genetically related to older kinds.
	www.talkorigins.org /faqs/wic.html (3319 words)

	Dealing With "Scientific" Creationists
		Creationists maintain that recent controversies over such things as punctuated equilibria and cladistics demonstrate that it is something of a "club secret" among scientists that evolution is bankrupt.
		Creationists, therefore, demand that the dirty little secret be revealed to public school science students and that candor replace propaganda in textbooks.
		Creationists were right in charging that the teaching was "dogmatic." Students were memorizing facts instead of understanding the scientific method.
	www.infidels.org /library/modern/fred_edwords/creation.html (3105 words)

	Creation "Science" Debunked
		Modern creationists, however, are very slick, are usually well-educated, and are very skilled in the techniques of debate and sophistry.
		The scientific arguments of the creationists, while nonsensical, are very intricate and detailed, and can sound very convincing to people who do not have enough scientific knowledge to make a good judgement (such as local school board members).
		Creationists depend heavily on quotations from evolutionary scientists and writers which they have pulled out of context and twisted to sound like something other than what the writer intended.
	www.geocities.com /CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437 (1052 words)

	ADVICE: The Debate of Young Earth Creationists
		Creationists have lots and lots of time, since they do no work, perform no research, and are supported by their cults.
		The Creationists attack what is NOT evolution, nor Evolutionary Theory, and then the scientists or lay person must waste all of her or his time explaining to the audience that what the Creationists attacked was not evolution, nor was it what Evolutionary Theory states.
		Creationists have no moral or ethical scruples about being offensive --- they actually believe that they are doing the work of their god(s), and thus the social contract between people is null.
	www.skeptictank.org /hs/yec1.htm (1672 words)

	Speciation conference brings good news for creationists (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		The creationist assumes that real, substantive increases in information (that is, specifying for an increase in what might be called ‘functional complexity’) will never arise without intelligent cause.
		Speciation within the creationist model will therefore be expected to occur in the absence of any increases in the information within the biosphere, and thus can properly be classified as non-evolutionary.
		Creationists would hold that the two species which hybridised were likely to have previously formed from a single ancestral population by way of non-evolutionary (that is, non-information-gaining) speciation.
	www.answersingenesis.org /tj/v11/i2/speciation.asp (1129 words)

	Thermodynamics, Creationism, and Evolution - Summer 1997
		In response, creationists simply note that all such devices were ultimately designed and built by an intelligent human, whereupon they develop the false analogy that “intelligent design” also pervades nature (which it does not) and assert that it, too, must have been designed and created.
		There is no hint in the creationist literature that their thermodynamicists have addressed this seeming contradiction, which derives from the extensive nature of such thermodynamic properties as energy, entropy, enthalpy, Gibbs free energy, and many more.
		A formidable debater against the creationists most notorious platform artists, he has never hidden his Atheism and has always made it clear that he disagrees with the notion that there is no contradiction between science and religion.
	www.americanatheist.org /smr97/T3/thermodynamics.html (4848 words)

	Controversy Between Creationists and Evolutionists: (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		Creationists believe in God’s creation of the Earth, explained in the book of Genesis, rather than a natural evolution over billions of years.
		Creationists want to preserve their faith by including their beliefs in the teaching of dinosaurs.
		Both Evolutionists and Creationists seem to appreciate the existence of dinosaurs but do not agree on their dating.
	www.priweb.org /ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOLrp/62rp.htm (556 words)

	CREATIONISTS HIT CAPITOL HILL FOR CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
		Creationists all argue that life and the universe arose as the product of Divine will -- literally, an act of God -- but they disagree on the details of that scenario.
		Other creationists (although they seem to be a minority in the movement) suggest that an older earth scenario is called for, or that there was a temporal "gap" between the pre-Adamic events in Genesis and the subsequent recreation.
		According to a summary of creationist beliefs from the National Center for Science Education, most advocates of Intelligent Design allow for micro-evolution, but argue that the larger process of mutation and natural selection is really the work of an intelligent and intervening deity.
	www.atheists.org /flash.line/evol10.htm (1969 words)

	Things creationists hate
		Creationists have to hate those pesky asteroid craters which are found all over the planet, throughout all geological strata.
		It seems that creationists are more prone to getting their science degrees from non-accredited (or just plain fake) religious institutions rather than genuine, accredited schools or universities.
		One of the more bizarre creationist notions is that before the "Fall", all creatures lived in perfect harmony, and all ate plants (it seems to have something to do with death not existing until Adam bit the fruit).
	www.holysmoke.org /thought.htm (7255 words)

	creationism and creation science
		Creationists have been encouraged to run for local school boards to try to gain control of the teaching of evolution that way.
		Creationists who complain to school boards about the teaching of evolution are more likely to be successful in their efforts at censoring science texts if the school board has several creationists.
		Creationists, such as Board Member Steve Abrams, a former head of the state Republican Party, hailed the decision as a victory in the war against evolutionists.
	skepdic.com /creation.html (4189 words)

	The New Creationists (A College of Wooster Webpage)
		The New Creationists are still bitter foes of evolution, but their educational backgrounds, knowledge of evolution, and political and rhetorical tactics have greatly improved.
		Creationists are motivated by passionate beliefs that they are fighting for the truth in science, and most believe that they are also saving your soul.
		Kenneth Miller is a biologist with a superb grasp of evolutionary theory, creationist arguments, and theism.
	www.wooster.edu /geology/NewCreationists.html (2816 words)

	The Creationists (Ronald Numbers) - book review
		Some of the pitfalls facing creationist attempts to do science research can be seen in the career of Clifford L. Burdick, who was considered a bit of a loose cannon even by his fellow creationists.
		Two creationist research institutes were set up, the Institute for Creation Research and the less well known Adventist Geoscience Research Institute; both faced similar problems to earlier creationist organisations.
		There may be relatively few creationist scientists, but creationism can draw on a broad base of support amongst the wider community.
	dannyreviews.com /h/Creationists.html (1069 words)

	Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer.
		Scientific creationists must similarly train their minds to reject the overwhelming evidence from geology, biology, physics and astronomy which contradicts their interpretation of the Bible.
		As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.
		Creationists insist that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and that the geologic strata were laid down by the Flood.
	www.lhup.edu /~dsimanek/6flood.htm (2051 words)

	Things Creationists Hate
		Since it was around for a number of years without being denied by creationists, by the time they got around to considering it, it was too late to deny (if it was wrong, why didn't they say so from the start?).
		Actually, the creationist quip of "if humans evolved from apes, how come apes are still around?" has a much more serious flaw than the fact that a species can still exist after another has descended from it.
		Now that lame creationist analogy has apparently evolved to demand that it be possible for a tornado to assemble a 747 out of a junkyard before we can admit the possibility of evolution.
	members.aol.com /darrwin/things.htm (8415 words)

	WBGSU Radio Interview on Religious Discrimination Against Creationists
		So we are not talking about people who were raised creationists and continue as such as professors, but people who became creationists only after they were convinced by the scientific evidence, as I was.
		It is difficult for an open creationist, regardless of his or her qualifications, to earn a Ph.D. and, especially, to achieve tenure.
		Most creationists accept a form of natural selection, yet the literature coming out recently on it is devastating, so even creationists are having to revise their views.
	www.rae.org /WBGSU.html (3930 words)

	Evolutionary Body Change Demo Answers Creationists
		Their work effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution -- the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.
		Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn't be able to perpetuate itself.
		"The creationists' argument rests in part on the fact that animals have two sets of chromosomes and that in order to get big changes, you'd need to mutate the same genes in both sets of chromosomes," explains McGinnis.
	unisci.com /stories/20021/0207021.htm (856 words)

	LINKS FOR CREATIONISTS - THE SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP
		After all, Bryan knew that an anti-Copernican, geocentric earth is an integral part of Biblical Creation, but he also "knew"...as the whole literate world thought it "knew" by then...that science "had proven" that the earth rotated on an "axis" daily and orbited around the sun annually.
		Give it another generation or two and if any Creationists remain they will be viewed as being just as ridiculously eccentric as geocentrists are viewed now.
		Bible honoring Creationists know that the wrestling match they are in is with Satan and his minions rather than men per se (Eph.6:12).
	www.fixedearth.com /links/symb_rela.htm (1036 words)

	Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?
		In their study of creationist publishing practices (“The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation ‘Science’,” Quarterly Review of Biology 60 (1985): 21-30), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980-1983, looking for creationist submissions.
		Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics.
		Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published.
	www.trueorigin.org /creatpub.asp (1382 words)

	Reason: Creation Summer Camp: Live from the 2005 Creation Mega-Conference
		The creationists here at the Mega-Conference make it crystal clear that they are no namby-pamby Discovery Institute intelligent designers nor are they mere progressive evolutionists.
		Specifically, creationists worry that biological evolution undermines people's moral beliefs, leading to lawlessness, family breakdown, homosexuality, pornography, and abortion.
		Philip Bell, former British cancer researcher and now fulltime creationist, in his talk "Ape Men, 'Missing Links' and the Bible," explains, "If Adam is your ancestor then you were created specially and have a purpose in life.
	www.reason.com /rb/rb071905.shtml (1481 words)

	Creationist Fellowship: a Creation Science Organization
		Because of the worldwide inundation by evolutionary humanism, the mission field at home, next door, and abroad has increasingly become totally ignorant that there is alternative to the pervasive teaching of modern popular science.
		The victims of ungodly leaders and teachers who willfully reject God and creationism, are ceaselessly indoctrinated by evidence wrongly interpreted with the result that they know nothing of the biblical creationist model of origins.
		God has spoken to man clearly and we need to tell men this only legitimate basic understanding of the natural world that they may see and believe this revelation they are accountable to.
	www.creationist.org (784 words)

	TAP: Vol 13, Iss. 22. Survival of the Slickest. Chris Mooney. (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		In the early- and mid-1990s, Dembski and Johnson disdained the creationist strategy of trying to slip their ideas into the public schools.
		Indeed, according to Lawrence Krauss, a Case Western Reserve University physicist who has contested Meyer and others during the Ohio debates, a recent survey of more than 10 million science articles published in the past 12 years shows just 88 references to "intelligent design," the vast bulk of which appear in engineering journals.
		If ID theorists are now behaving more like old-school creationists -- giving up on the mainstream, targeting schools and students -- creationists may beneﬁt by the comparison.
	www.prospect.org /print/V13/22/mooney-c.html (1306 words)

	Guardian Unlimited \| Special reports \| Religious right fights science for the heart of America
		During the past five years, subscribers to intelligent design have assembled a roster of influential supporters in the state, including a smattering of people with PhDs, such as Mr Harris, to lend their cause a veneer of scientific credibility.
		When conservative Republicans took control of the Kansas state school board last November, the creationists seized their chance, installing supporters on the committee reviewing the high school science curriculum.
		At the first of a series of public hearings on the new course material, the audience was equally split between the defenders of established science, and the anti-evolution rebels.
	www.guardian.co.uk /usa/story/0,12271,1407422,00.html (1408 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)