Creationist Financing

| 164 Comments

Todd Wood, a young earth creationist at Bryan College, provides summary data on YEC organizations’ finances over the 2003-2008 period. There are several interesting things about those data.

First, as Wood points out, AIG’s share of the creationist dollar grew over that period, from 61.6% ($9M) of the market in 2003 to 68.2% ($22.7M) in 2008. AIG’s growth in market share came at the expense of all the other YEC organizations, with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and and the Creation Research Society (CRS), the two elder U.S. creationist organizations, contributing most of the change. While ICR’s revenues also increased over those years, from $4,5M to $8.7M, as a percentage of the total creationist dollar it decreased from 30.6% to 26.2% and CRS’s percentage declined from 1.7% to 1.0% as its dollar revenues declined from $250K to $230K. The smaller YEC organizations also lost share.

Second, Eric Hovind, offspring of jailed tax evader Kent Hovind, entered the list in third place in 2008 with his “GodQuest” (DBA Creation Science Evangelism) at $930K for 2.8% of the creationism market, far behind ICR’s $8.7M but well ahead of CRS’s $230K.

Third (and pretty depressing to see), NCSE’s gross revenue as a percentage of AIG’s gross revenue has steadily declined over those years, dropping from 7.8% in 2003 to just 5.7% in 2008. In 2008, 85% of NCSE’s revenues ($1.1M of $1.3M) came from direct public support–memberships and donations from you and me. While the amount has increased in absolute terms over those years, as a proportion of creationist revenues it has dropped significantly. C’mon, people. Let’s put our money where our mouths are.

Hat tip to Wood for doing the digging in form 990s.

164 Comments

What hit me when looking at your line about AiG’s numbers is the implication that income for all those orgs as a whole had more than doubled over that five year period, from under $15 million to well over $30 million. Had to look for myself to make sure I wasn’t mistaken. And that’s just for the YECs; apparently the Old Earthers still raked in increasing amounts of dough, though in significantly smaller amounts.
The biggest jump in Wood’s numbers happens between the 2005-6 fiscal years, with the caveat that AiG’s reporting method changed so only half their data for the year was available. Still, it’s a huge leap. The next biggest jump happens between 2007 and 2008.

It’s tempting to try and connect those jumps with their contemporary political landscapes, but that would probably just be a loose association. Just because, for example, Bush uttered his remark about teaching ID in schools in late ‘05 doesn’t mean it triggered a wave of funding and support.

Wheels said:

The biggest jump in Wood’s numbers happens between the 2005-6 fiscal years, with the caveat that AiG’s reporting method changed so only half their data for the year was available. Still, it’s a huge leap. The next biggest jump happens between 2007 and 2008.

The Dover decision was December 2005; and as I recall, the creationists were really pissed.

There has apparently been a “doubling down” on the part of the YECs because they feel they have been sold-out by the IDs. Now they seem to be determined to show how it’s done.

AiG has taken an extremely hard-line position, almost kamikaze-like in its attack on science using its own brand of pseudo-science which Ham learned form Morris and Gish and is taking to new levels of brash absurdity.

The creationist “museum” was completed in about that time frame and they have just celebrated their millionth visitor. Using admissions rates at about $40 per person, you are looking at something like $40 million dollars of income right there.

Ham is a damned good exploiter of fundamentalist markets, and it looks like he is determined to build an empire. We will likely see his political influence begin to approach that of Falwell and Robertson. There is a reason for his “State of the Nation” addresses.

Mike Elzinga said:

Using admissions rates at about $40 per person, you are looking at something like $40 million dollars of income right there.

I just checked the creation “museum” website. An average ticket would be more like $15.

So I stand corrected.

The reason I jumped on the $40 is because I happen to know there is a submariner convention in Cincinnati coming up this summer, and one of the events a person can pick is a tour of the “museum” for $45 per person. That must include transportation from the convention site.

No doubt Ham is attempting to plug his “museum” with every other event that takes place in the region.

So, let’s take a minute to focus on NCSE’s little gig.

Tell me how come their gross revenue, (relative to the YEC’s and apparently even the OEC’s) is in a state of decline?

Can’t blame that development on AIG, after all NCSE is in charge of NCSE. So what’s the reason, amigos?

FL

Ah, the strutting “Christian” taunter is back.

FL said:

So, let’s take a minute to focus on NCSE’s little gig.

Tell me how come their gross revenue, (relative to the YEC’s and apparently even the OEC’s) is in a state of decline?

Can’t blame that development on AIG, after all NCSE is in charge of NCSE. So what’s the reason, amigos?

FL

Because, unlike AIG, ICR, etc…, scientists and educators are busy doing science and education instead of focusing on public relations and politics.

…and nobody donates to NCSE and counts it as part of their “tithe,” or expects it to be totted up on the credit side of their ledger for getting into Heaven. Fear of hellfire can milk plenty of bucks out of the gullible.

Jesse said:

Because, unlike AIG, ICR, etc…, scientists and educators are busy doing science and education instead of focusing on public relations and politics.

Real research takes time and money; and the results are tangible improvements to technology, health, and the economy.

Money going to pseudo-science goes into the pockets of the charlatans who have learned to milk the gullible by making them think they are buying their way into heaven.

Just Bob said:

…and nobody donates to NCSE and counts it as part of their “tithe,”

Actually, I kinda do.

When I look at what fraction of my income goes to doing good works, I include my support of NCSE right alongside Habitat for Humanity, etc. NCSE is a powerful voice for the facts in the discussion about modern evolutionary theory, and good theology must be tied to our best understanding of the world as it is and not how we wish it were. Creationist organizations are not voices for the facts in the current social controversy, and their distortions and inaccuracies lead to bad theology and drive people away from the Gospel. Thus, even though it’s an easy drive for me, I will not go to the “Creation Museum;” I do not want to put a single cent into the hands of the people who sponsored it.

or expects it to be totted up on the credit side of their ledger for getting into Heaven. Fear of hellfire can milk plenty of bucks out of the gullible.

I am a Presbyterian who takes my church’s theology seriously: there is no “ledger” and no choice I can make can compel the Almighty to take a particular action.

I think it’s a damn shame that so much money has gone to the promotion of creationism that could have instead gone to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and generally comforting the afflicted.

Mike Elzinga said:

Ah, [FL] is back.

Just remember – if he says anything that even SOUNDS like “serious debate” … step back.

FL -

Can’t blame that development on AIG, after all NCSE is in charge of NCSE. So what’s the reason, amigos?

Mike Elzinga already explained this above, but now you can hear it from me.

Creationism blew up in Dover in 2005. The increased funding is a panic reaction. But reality always wins in the end.

Jesse said:

FL said:

So, let’s take a minute to focus on NCSE’s little gig.

Tell me how come their gross revenue, (relative to the YEC’s and apparently even the OEC’s) is in a state of decline?

Can’t blame that development on AIG, after all NCSE is in charge of NCSE. So what’s the reason, amigos?

FL

Because, unlike AIG, ICR, etc…, scientists and educators are busy doing science and education instead of focusing on public relations and politics.

That plus the fact that NCSE has been so successful keeping anti-science garbage out of public schools that many people might think that their $30 (for a year’s membership) won’t make a difference. But that would be a terrible excuse. I have been a member since 1999.

Hey, FL, you ought to join too. NCSE gives plenty of exposure to creationist material.

Richard B. Hoppe said -

Third (and pretty depressing to see), NCSE’s gross revenue as a percentage of AIG’s gross revenue has steadily declined over those years, dropping from 7.8% in 2003 to just 5.7%

Even one cent to creationism is depressing, and the NCSE deserves more funding.

Having said that, this comparison is overly pessimistic.

The crap-peddling organizations you mention, along with the DI and a few private Bible colleges, are all the creationists have got.

AND they ultimately get virtually nothing for their money. A small proportion is turned into brainwash koolaid and shoveled back at them, and the rest goes directly into the propagandists’ pockets.

And the koolaid is pretty worthless, because it demonstrably serves only to reinforce the already brainwashed. It has virtually no success in creating new converts; it may create a few, but drives others away. Most of the few public figures who have converted to fundamentalism have significant histories of substance abuse and/or manifest mental instability or intellectual challenge, e.g. Kirk Cameron. Even in some such cases, the “conversion” to creationism is suspect and may be related to political or crass commercial motivations, e.g. Ann Coulter.

Not one dime of the funding mentioned is used for anything that in any way actually improves or advances creationist dogma, because by definition, that can’t be done.

In fact, creationists would arguably be better off keeping their money. Why should they give a dollar to Dembski? All he’s going to do is give them back twenty-five cents worth of propaganda that merely tells them what they already “know”, and spend the rest on whatever he spends it on.

Meanwhile, although the NCSE doesn’t have a big budget, actual mainstream science funding is many billions, and although the efficiency with which that money is spent is not necessarily perfect, it is certainly not being wasted on self-serving propaganda, but rather, is being used in ways that improve and advance science.

Just Bob -

Fear of hellfire can milk plenty of bucks out of the gullible.

The way I perceive it, it is not fear of, nor necessarily even sincere belief in, hell or heaven, which is the motivator.

It is dislike of people who are “different” in some way that drives the enterprise. Of course, this is just my (reasonable and educated) perception.

Fl,

Thanks for the inspiration. Our family just donated.

As I say to my children. Good job!

Rob

FL said:

So, let’s take a minute to focus on NCSE’s little gig.

Tell me how come their gross revenue, (relative to the YEC’s and apparently even the OEC’s) is in a state of decline?

Can’t blame that development on AIG, after all NCSE is in charge of NCSE. So what’s the reason, amigos?

FL

Frank J said:

Hey, FL, you ought to join too. NCSE gives plenty of exposure to creationist material.

The only kind of exposure FL and other creationists want for creationist materials is government-enforced indoctrination of children to make them pious, stupid, unreasonably suspicious of science, and most importantly, vulnerable to con-artists for Jesus, under penalty of eternal hellfire.

When I hear the words “creationist financing”, I think of things like repeatedly lying to the landlord, claiming the rent check is in the mail and accusing him of persecuting you when he points out that the only check that arrives is written in crayon on construction paper and misspelled. Or maybe beating up your neighbors, robbing them, then trying to sue them for robbing YOU, and crying persecution when they pull out a video of you stealing their laptop, pawning it, and spending the money on hookers and blow.

Maybe FL can explain to us why AIG, ICR, CRS and their brethren don’t produce or fund any actual research. Donations are increasing, so where does the money go?

And on a related topic, do the listed organizations benefit from any tax breaks (since they are often part of church ministries)?

SWT said:

I think it’s a damn shame that so much money has gone to the promotion of creationism that could have instead gone to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and generally comforting the afflicted.

Either creationists assume that transforming children into brainless zombie-soldiers for Jesus is far, far more important than wasting time by caring the afflicted, or they just don’t care about caring for the afflicted.

After all, according to the Christians at places like the Discovery Institute and Answers In Genesis, God doesn’t care about caring for people: God cares about you giving Him all of your money and all of your undying devotion. It’s imperative that the Lord’s mortal lieutenants enjoy the greatest, most tackiest creature comforts money can buy, while, simultaneously, it’s also important that other people remain live in heartbreaking squalor so they know exactly how Jesus feels, apparently.

Yakivegas said:

Maybe FL can explain to us why AIG, ICR, CRS and their brethren don’t produce or fund any actual research. Donations are increasing, so where does the money go?

To fund propaganda and acquisition of creature comforts, where else?

Yakivegas said:

Maybe FL can explain to us why AIG, ICR, CRS and their brethren don’t produce or fund any actual research. Donations are increasing, so where does the money go?

And on a related topic, do the listed organizations benefit from any tax breaks (since they are often part of church ministries)?

Yakivegas said:

Maybe FL can explain to us why AIG, ICR, CRS and their brethren don’t produce or fund any actual research. Donations are increasing, so where does the money go?

And on a related topic, do the listed organizations benefit from any tax breaks (since they are often part of church ministries)?

Oops - let’s try that again…

I would expect the Answers In Genesis Creationist (Anti-) Museum’s entire income stream is not taxable. And all of its operating expenses are tax deductible. Something’s got to be done about that.

FL said:

So, let’s take a minute to focus on NCSE’s little gig.

Tell me how come their gross revenue, (relative to the YEC’s and apparently even the OEC’s) is in a state of decline?

Can’t blame that development on AIG, after all NCSE is in charge of NCSE. So what’s the reason, amigos?

FL

In fact, NCSE’s revenues, which are mainly from direct public support (memberships and donations), are rising while AIG’s revenues from direct public support have been flat. In 2006 AIG derived 72% of its revenue from direct public support, and in 2008 that had dropped to 42%. AIG is making a lot of money from selling stuff. Or look at Eric Hovind’s operation. It derives 62% of its revenue from selling stuff.

Reasons to Believe, an OEC organization, is more like NCSE in that respect. However, contrary to FL’s claim, NCSE’s revenues as a percentage of RTB’s rose from 29.2% in 2003 to 48.1% in 2008. The numbers are there, FL, and actually doing the calculations helps avoid false claims like that.

Yakivegas said:

Maybe FL can explain to us why AIG, ICR, CRS and their brethren don’t produce or fund any actual research. Donations are increasing, so where does the money go?

And on a related topic, do the listed organizations benefit from any tax breaks (since they are often part of church ministries)?

NCSE is a 501(c)3, which means that donations to it are tax deductible.

Lying to riches – what a trend! Tell lies, get rich off of them. That’s the life of the creationists.

MrG said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Ah, [FL] is back.

Just remember – if he says anything that even SOUNDS like “serious debate” … step back.

Not to worry, MrG. He already ran away from a golden oppertunity on another thread. He doesn’t get another chance.

I’m with Harold. While it’s not exactly great news, I don’t believe that it’s all that depressing. Given the large number of Young Earth Creationists in America (as many as 60 million or more), it was only a matter of time before someone (i.e. Ken Ham) would find a away to exploit the market, and do it in a competent fashion (business-wise), which does seem to be a rather rare occurrence for creationists.

In some ways, it’s surprising that there aren’t an awful lot more Creation Museum type businesses raking in the dough all over the country, and I would not be shocked if Ham announces plans for a second outlet for peddling his nonsense in the near future.

So I think the key question here is how much of a market is there for this type of stuff? One or two major attractions can draw from a massive customer base, and you only need a small percentage who are keen enough to travel long distances to get there to make a nice profit. But once you start seeing multiple outlets all competing with each other for the believer’s dough, that’s when you see whether there is any sustained growth available in that marketplace.

So, at the moment, AiG is more of an anomaly than a troubling portent of things to come, and he’s in kind of an odd situation. You would think that secular entrepreneurs would by eying Ham’s success and looking at how they can exploit the same market he is tapping into, but perhaps the fear of being seen peddling superstitious nonsense to America’s children is keeping them away.

Yakivegas said:

Maybe FL can explain to us why AIG, ICR, CRS and their brethren don’t produce or fund any actual research. Donations are increasing, so where does the money go?

And on a related topic, do the listed organizations benefit from any tax breaks (since they are often part of church ministries)?

The ICR website lists current and past research projects. Click Departments for the research section.

Yeah, I kinda feel the same way about the Hadron Collider.

How much did it cost, again? Four Billion?

That cost every man, woman, and child on Earth $0.65. For some of us though, $0.65 pays for a day’s worth of food.

But then again, I guess searching for evidence which could demonstrate that quantum particles are in fact things is worth 4 billion bills.

I think it’s a damn shame that so much money has gone to the promotion of creationism that could have instead gone to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and generally comforting the afflicted.

Stanton Wrote:

The only kind of exposure FL and other creationists want for creationist materials is government-enforced indoctrination of children to make them pious, stupid, unreasonably suspicious of science, and most importantly, vulnerable to con-artists for Jesus, under penalty of eternal hellfire.

Of course (though some like Medved and Stein are not too keen on the Jesus part). They never recommend creationist material that is accompanied by a real critical analysis.

When they have the chutzpah to accuse us pf “censorship”, the proper response is not to just deny it but to show clearly who really is promoting censorship.

John Vanko said:

MrG said: I believe this was cited from THE ONION here not too long ago – “Christian Right Lobbies To Overturn Second Law Of Thermodynamics”:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/ch[…]-law-of,281/

What makes it even funnier is that YECreationists insist that the 2ndLOT is absolutely immutable, like their holy book.

If I recall correctly there is no assurance that our Laws of Thermodynamics hold true in strongly curved space-time, like you would encounter in close proximity to a black hole. Around Plant Earth where the curvature is very slight, or observing a black hole from great distance, they hold. With strong curvature, all bets are off - maybe they hold, maybe they don’t.

YECreationists don’t acknowledge this. Neither have I ever heard a YECreationist give a correct definition of entropy.

I may be wrong but the way I see it, the 2LOT is simply another way of expressing the simple, basic fact that the universe is like a machine running down towards it’s ultimate end: cold, quiet, nothing stirs. Unless the Big Crunch or some other yet to be discovered mechanism kicks in.

In the meantime we are enjoying the benefits of free energy. Lots of.

A belated addendum to the discussion of the submariner’s convention and their response to possible tours of the Creation Museum:

Mike Elzinga said:

Creepy indeed.

It’s early in the registrations for the convention, but so far the list of attendees shows 134 members with 220 registrations (that includes registrations of wives and family).

Only 9 have signed up for the Creation “Museum” tour so far.

If that few have signed up, it suggests that most of the sub vets are not interested in that crap.

I’m curious about how that tour got into the schedule while trips to the Cincinnati Zoo or the Field Museum did not. Given some of the humor among submariners, someone could have added it as a “freak show” event.

I’d like to think that it is because of the historical connection between evolutionary biology and submarines – in the person of J.B.S. Haldane. JBS’s father John Scott Haldane’s father was an important physiologist of breathing, who investigated the “bends” for the British Admiralty and computed the first diving tables. JBS assisted his father and carried on his work. During World War II, he was involved in the inquiry into the deaths of submariners in the sinking of the Thetis, and he also advised the Admiralty on the design of the minisubs that were sent to attack the German battleship Tirpitz in its Norwegian fjord. He is also said to have designed the breathing apparatus that allows escape from submarines.

And oh yes, he was one of the three great founders of theoretical population genetics, a founder as well of the mathematics of enzyme kinetics, and one of the original people to suggest that life started from an organic soup.

Here are some links:

Haldane entering a diving chamber: http://www.life.com/image/50455072

Ronald Clark’s biography of Haldane in a possibly-illegal online copy: http://gyanpedia.in/tft/Resources/b[…]ldanebio.pdf

Woops, editing mistake:

“JBS’s father John Scott Haldane’s father was”

should of course be

“JBS’s father John Scott Haldane was”

I think that the term “intelligence” as applied to creationism in its various con games doesn’t quite fit. “Low cunning” – yeah, I can easily grant them that.

Joe Felsenstein said:

I’d like to think that it is because of the historical connection between evolutionary biology and submarines – in the person of J.B.S. Haldane.

Joe,

Thanks for the links to Haldane’s work on submarine escape, especially Ronald Clark’s biography of Haldane. Absolutely fascinating. I hadn’t heard of Haldane’s connection with the early work on submariner physiology.

Submariners in the U.S., during the height of the cold war and before the nuclear navy, escaped using the Momsen lung invented by Charles Momsen.

The Momsen lung was discarded around the early to mid 1950s and replaced with an escape method in which we climbed into an escape trunk in either the forward or after torpedo rooms. We flooded these with water, leaving an air pocket just above the escape hatch, and pressurized to the ambient pressure outside.

We then opened the escape hatch to the outside, stepped out into the open water, and pulled the inflate cord on our life jackets. During the buoyant ascent we actively blew out, following our bubbles to the surface. This was to be sure that the air that was expanding in our lungs was continuously relived as we ascended. It was actually safer than the Momsen lung, which often had mechanical problems from long storage and battering. We did practices from 50 feet and 100 feet, and occasionally in the open waters in the Pacific.

And wouldn’t you know, among submariners it became known as “blow-and-go.”

When the nuclear navy eventually replaced the diesel boats, this kind of escape training was no longer done. The rationale was that the nuclear boats operated in far too deep water and were not supposed to be captured anyway. The training towers were dismantled.

Now escape training is being reinstituted. A lot of the submarine uses have returned to “shallow water” ops in and around the continental shelves instead of out in deep water.

Robert Byers Wrote:

I.d is however helping to stir up more interest about the present censorship in public institutions by people before disinterested or ignorant about it all.

Right. And anyone with at least half a brain and who believes that it is wrong to bear false witness knows which side is in favor of censorship.

Frank J said:

Robert Byers Wrote:

I.d is however helping to stir up more interest about the present censorship in public institutions by people before disinterested or ignorant about it all.

Right. And anyone with at least half a brain and who believes that it is wrong to bear false witness knows which side is in favor of censorship.

It was late and I was tired, but what I meant is that the great majority of people are capable of knowing that. But the unfortunate reality is that the great majority of people, including many who accept evolution, have been fooled by the scam artists into think that mainstream science advocates censorship and that the anti-evolution activists (aka scam artists) do not. That’s two separate falsehoods in case anyone is counting.

Note the irony. If the scam artists really wanted people to see “all sides” of the “debate”, they would not bother with the ~0.1% of students’ time (a few hours out of thousands) that they are learning evolution. And especially if they were truly conservative they would not demand that taxpayers pay for it. The “it” being phony “strengths and weaknesses” which is pure misrepresentation, with a virtually complete censorship (a few % of students might recognize the scam) of mainstream science’s answers to those misrepresentations.

As I always say, above and beyond any church-state issues, ~99.9% of scientists working in relevant fields, those with the most to gain if there were a better explanation, agree that evolution should be taught free of misrepresentation by anti-evolution activists. And the leaders of most major religions agree (idiotic nonsense that they are “bullied” notwithstanding).

Frank J said:

Frank J said:

Robert Byers Wrote:

I.d is however helping to stir up more interest about the present censorship in public institutions by people before disinterested or ignorant about it all.

Right. And anyone with at least half a brain and who believes that it is wrong to bear false witness knows which side is in favor of censorship.

It was late and I was tired, but what I meant is that the great majority of people are capable of knowing that. But the unfortunate reality is that the great majority of people, including many who accept evolution, have been fooled by the scam artists into think that mainstream science advocates censorship and that the anti-evolution activists (aka scam artists) do not. That’s two separate falsehoods in case anyone is counting.

Note the irony. If the scam artists really wanted people to see “all sides” of the “debate”, they would not bother with the ~0.1% of students’ time (a few hours out of thousands) that they are learning evolution. And especially if they were truly conservative they would not demand that taxpayers pay for it. The “it” being phony “strengths and weaknesses” which is pure misrepresentation, with a virtually complete censorship (a few % of students might recognize the scam) of mainstream science’s answers to those misrepresentations.

As I always say, above and beyond any church-state issues, ~99.9% of scientists working in relevant fields, those with the most to gain if there were a better explanation, agree that evolution should be taught free of misrepresentation by anti-evolution activists. And the leaders of most major religions agree (idiotic nonsense that they are “bullied” notwithstanding).

This is simple. Freedom of thought, discussion, inquiry on origin issues is a desired goal of creationists in public institutions. Its not from your crowd. Creationism demands, and will get, its moral and legal rights to argue/defend itself in public paid institutions. Simple equation. Why do the evolution folk fight this? it must be because of fear of loss of ground in public acceptance? Creationism is confident we always do better or as well as evolution in its persuasiveness to the people In North America.

How can Creationism do well or better than evolution in its persuasiveness when Creationists regard lying and slander to be holy sacraments, and care absolutely nothing about science or explaining anything?

Robert Byers said:

Why do the evolution folk fight this? it must be because of fear of loss of ground in public acceptance? Creationism is confident we always do better or as well as evolution in its persuasiveness to the people In North America.

You were getting all the science wrong 40+ years ago and you are still getting it wrong. You can’t live on the science you believe without the support of “your enemies” who protect and feed you; yet you remain an ingrate and a parasite.

You have no business getting a soapbox for teaching crap that continues to be wrong. Keep it in your church as the pillars of your religion if you like; but you don’t get to throw stumbling blocks into the learning paths of other people’s kids.

Dear Mr. Byers, Creationism has been shown to be false, in general, and in all details. The proponents of creationism have been proven to be liars. Why do you feel you have a moral and legal right to use taxpayer money to lie to children, in violation of both the US Constitution and God’s Ten Commandments?

Robert Byers said:

This is simple. Freedom of thought, discussion, inquiry on origin issues is a desired goal of creationists in public institutions. Its not from your crowd. Creationism demands, and will get, its moral and legal rights to argue/defend itself in public paid institutions. Simple equation. Why do the evolution folk fight this? it must be because of fear of loss of ground in public acceptance? Creationism is confident we always do better or as well as evolution in its persuasiveness to the people In North America.

Of course. We absolutely must make sure that all science students understand that while mainstream science understands, based on objective evidence, the Earth to be the consequence of a 14+ billion year process and that humans are the result of an evolutionary process that started billions of years ago, those who have studied “origin issues” with a truly open mind understand (1) that the Earth and sky were actually formed by Lord Marduk from the corpse of Tiamat, whom he slayed, (2) that humans were produced from the blood and bone of Kingu in an act of special creation, and (3) that the intent of this creative act was to produce slaves for the gods.

Robert Byers said:

This is simple. Freedom of thought, discussion, inquiry on origin issues is a desired goal of creationists in public institutions. Its not from your crowd. Creationism demands, and will get, its moral and legal rights to argue/defend itself in public paid institutions. Simple equation. Why do the evolution folk fight this? it must be because of fear of loss of ground in public acceptance? Creationism is confident we always do better or as well as evolution in its persuasiveness to the people In North America.

If Creationism were not associated with fundamentalist religion, it would have been dismissed as outright fraud even by most Christians. Which it indeed is. Fraud can never be accepted in science classrooms, whatever it may be called.

Dale Husband Wrote:

If Creationism were not associated with fundamentalist religion, it would have been dismissed as outright fraud even by most Christians. Which it indeed is. Fraud can never be accepted in science classrooms, whatever it may be called.

In fact the leaders of most Christian religions do recognize it as fraud, and have admitted it in so many words (often chosen carefully so as not to upset the congregation). While maybe half of that congregation agrees at least that evolution is the “better explanation,” a much larger % has been fooled into thinking that it’s “fair” to let anti-evolution activists have control of public school science class. So that’s still a major problem, and will remain one regardless of how many court decisions we win. They need to know that anti-evolution activism, be it called “creationism,” “ID,” “academic freedom,” etc. is a fraud. Above and beyond any church-state issues.

Ironically we need to thank people like Robert for stating it so starkly that it can only help us with the majority. Sure a few % will take his side, but they would with or without people like him.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on May 31, 2010 11:19 AM.

NSF Center for the Study of Evolution in Action Funded was the previous entry in this blog.

Danaus plexippus is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter