Why people laugh at Creationists but have a harder time refuting ID-ists

scordova: But don’t you see, we creationists suffer as a group by the misdeeds of a few. Sal, are you a little "c" creationist, or a big "C" Creationist? If you're a big "C" Creationist and object to Hovinund, or however it's spelled, then this, IMO, falls outside of ID. But, if you're a little "c" creationist, then I don't see why you would be upset with Hovinund. So, I'm a bit at a loss here. PaV

It will likely be done at another website that I’m constructing where technical conversations can take place and by people more qualified than I.

I don't understand. Why can't you post about it here? Are you only allowed to post about creationists if you're making fun of them? tragic mishap

The 'real' scientists, teaching 'real' science, are generally laughed at by successive generations for believing the things they did. butifnot

"this can be corrected not by policing people, but by teaching real science to creationists so that people like Hovind won’t have such a large audience." - scordova Hmmm, that kinda sounds exactly like BioLogos' mission. Their focus is particularly on 'evangelical Christians.' And as we all know, most 'creationists' who need to be taught, i.e. to learn about 'real science' are 'evangelical Christians.' Unfortunately, as a self-proclaimed 'creationist,' Sal, BioLogos doesn't think you are actually interested in 'real science,' at least, not on certain topics. As usual, there's a rub for the label you take... Gregory

Scordova, As bevets said,

"Everyone is a layman in some discipline . . ."

And theologians are theological in their discipline, and so on . . . Why, then, are you seemingly insisting that those who are approaching this from a theological or other discipline are not to be listened to? NO!!! I have exactly zero problem with you pointing out the error(s) of Hovind's ways where he is, in fact, in error. That is great. As for VFX, no, I don't think you even need bother. What you did, however, was frame it in such a poor manner that you got some pretty deserved backlash. You "promoted" thunderf00t over creationists? What!? If you felt the need to show the errors of these guys, then do it. But to use thunderf00t against them is pathetic. Hint for you: Why do the Darwinists bother to pick on creationists of the likes of Hovind and VFX??? Precisely because they are easy targets! They know it! And why do the Darwinists all gather 'round to cheer each other on when they do it? Because they are unwilling to actually do their own thinking. These people are lost anyway, Scordova. Seriously, do you really feel the effects of these two creationists in your work? Are you being labeled a crackpot because of VFX or Hovind? I doubt it. But if you are, you should be abundantly able to make your detractors feel extreme shame at taking anything that comes from that corner of the debate seriously. The atheists are laughing at the creationists, sure. But the reason they do it is not because of these two individuals or those like them. They do it because they have no good arguments for their position. If you haven't come to that conclusion yet yourself, I think you should do a little academic critique of the man in the mirror. If Darwinists actually had good arguments, they would laugh at creationists, literally, and nothing more. No circus side-shows would be necessary. To focus a bit: If you want to show the errors in Hovind's or VFX's science (or theology even), I, as a YEC, wholeheartedly welcome it! You did not do it in a very tactful way here, however. The backlash is over your delivery, not the substance. Brent

bevets: "(many scientist are poor philosophers)" Which is a remarkably pleasant manner in which to state that many scientists are incompetent within their discipline. Science is the bridge between Philosophy and Engineering. If it were not then there would either be no need for hypotheses (Philosophy) or no need for experiment (Engineering). The entire pit fight over evidence and falsification is the pure Philosophy side of things that needs be squared away before we get on the bridge to Engineering with experiment. If the Philosophy is unsound then one cannot get over that bridge in the first place. And it makes no difference how many papers are published on how awesome the consequent affirming post-hoc trivia might be. Of course, many scientists are terrible engineers as well. Or we wouldn't be hearing so terribly often about evidence that isn't. And isn't replicable even if you think it should be evidence. Maus

for those of you laughing at Hovind, for suggesting that the flood was caused by a comet, I suggest you do some research. I could give you an overview, but a quick read through some of the reviews would provide a better picture. Granted, the timeline given by the authors may not match up exactly with the Biblical Flood, but the event, according to the authors was still fairly recently (as in probably less than 10,000 years ago.) http://www.amazon.com/Cataclysm-Compelling-Evidence-Cosmic-Catastrophe/dp/1879181428/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345510059&sr=8-1&keywords=cataclysm+allen (this is a MUST have book.) And don't let the hokey cover fool you; this is a serious and scholarly book. I've got another book about the myths and legends of the American Indians and a common rememberance is one in which the earth's foundations were shaken by what was believed to be a fiery object from space....soon after, rivers and seas were seen to be boiling...along with fires breaking out everywhere....the earth's cooling seemed to come some time later.... If anyone would like the source, let me know ... I can probably find it for you...(I have lots of books....will take a little digging.) vh

I have long maintained that this discussion is not primarily about science -- it is also about philosophy (and theology, and education, and law, and...) Phillip Johnson (not a scientist) made this point several times. It is also not a discussion for the academy that can be walled off from the general public. Everyone is a layman in some discipline (many scientist are poor philosophers). No discussion can be exclusively claimed by one discipline. Point A may be scientific, but it has philosophical underpinnings. Point B may be philosophical, but it is informed by scientific observation. I agree that we should always strive for rigorous arguments and correct sloppy thinking, however I also think that atheists (such as thunderf00t) are primarily looking for a distraction and it is a mistake to let them suggest it is anything more than a distraction. bevets

Why don’t you do a post on catastrophic plate tectonics? Or how fast rushing water can cut through concrete and extrapolate how long it would take to cut out the Grand Canyon?

Good idea. It will likely be done at another website that I'm constructing where technical conversations can take place and by people more qualified than I. For example, I know a Princeton trained PhD who has been published in the Journal Nature who would be delighted to write about it. :-) The website is under construction, but for those interested in technical discussion, here are some drafts (I emphasize drafts) of some of the sort of work that will appear there: http://creationevolutionuniversity.org/public_blogs/skepticalzone/2nd_law_sewell/basic_statistical_mechanics_v1_c.doc and some corrections to that draft http://creationevolutionuniversity.org/public_blogs/skepticalzone/2nd_law_sewell/purcell_and_pound_v1.doc So rather than trade angry words over topics like Entropy we can trade scientific knowledge. God bless you. Sal scordova

And frankly, that’s why I chose to study science at secular schools than theology at religious institutions.

I chose to study at secular schools for similar reasons. I went to a private Christian high school and was deeply disappointed with the education I received there, especially science. I also knew that the Christian colleges my father wanted me to go to were also terrible. I understand where you're coming from. My point is that we ought to be ignoring these people. There will always be dumb people in the world, and they will always be popular with each other, Christian or not. There is no avoiding it. Best to ignore it and use your time for doing exactly what you suggest. By "tripe" I meant the tripe contained in those videos. That's five minutes of my life I will never get back thanks to you. :D Why don't you do a post on catastrophic plate tectonics? Or how fast rushing water can cut through concrete and extrapolate how long it would take to cut out the Grand Canyon? tragic mishap

"But don’t you see, we creationists suffer as a group by the misdeeds of a few. We all are being laughed in part because of Hovind. We can’t always stop the behavior of others, but it is distressing that Hovind, like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, kept getting away with what he was doing. Now like Jim Bakker, he’s now in jail. But this can be corrected not by policing people, but by teaching real science to creationists so that people like Hovind won’t have such a large audience…." (... Can't seem to get the quoting thing to work...) I definitely agree with you. Everyone is better served by simply (as tough as it is to do) getting the RIGHT information out there and to the people that need/want it. The bad figureheads good at their jobs will continue to exist in any movement or place where they can get a following. Dawkins is a good atheistic case in point. These kinds of people are always out there. Just do it better than them, and be more accurate while doing it, and you'll take a huge bite out of their influence (hopefully). Kinvadren

I have been reading here for almost a year (maybe more) now and have greatly enjoyed a lot of the articles and posts, as well as user comments. When you guys ran through that series of user banning about logical fallacies in arguments considering the moon as existing or not existing I laughed so hard as it played out. It was hilarious to watch! Maybe over the top. But still very funny and classic! I do love you guys for the huge amount of work you do and I sympathize with the hole you're constantly trying to dig yourselves out of because of the "ID is religion in a cheap tuxedo" connotation. That's very unfair on the part of the critics. Unfortunately life's not fair, and so you guys are often times kicked around and stomped on when you shouldn't be. I was debating an atheist recently who very quickly struck my points with, "I'm not listening to you anymore because everything you reference and say is garbage." I looked at the peer reviewed studies and news articles I had cited, blinked a few times at such blind audacity, and shrugged. I know that's the kind of mentality you guys face constantly and I do very much sympathize. Trying to distance yourselves from any sort of religious connections is understandable but in the end I think that it's all but impossible to do. Whether you do everything you can to avoid it or not, religious people who disagree with evolutionism will always latch onto what you say for their own reasons and their own benefit. It's human nature. And by connection, the atheists and evolutionists will always be able to point to "that Creationist spouting the IDers" even if you keep saying, "We're not with them!" It's the way the world works. Note that I'm not saying you should give up and convert to a religion-based science group, or even a science-based religious group. I'm just saying that psychologically, the arena is what it is, as annoying as that can be. :) Kinvadren

Perhaps Sal could amend it to read “Why people laugh at *some* Creationists …”

But don't you see, we creationists suffer as a group by the misdeeds of a few. We all are being laughed in part because of Hovind. We can't always stop the behavior of others, but it is distressing that Hovind, like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, kept getting away with what he was doing. Now like Jim Bakker, he's now in jail. But this can be corrected not by policing people, but by teaching real science to creationists so that people like Hovind won't have such a large audience.... scordova

Timaeus, I like that last post and do agree with some of it. That, for instance, bad science is a detriment to any movement that pretends or wants to be scientific. But the overall theme here on this topic just seems kind of strange or offensive. I'm certainly not one to climb all over the political correctness pony, but I think this here goes a little too far with the generalizations and insult. Richard Dawkins is a good example of a person lacking some important science knowledge and a substantial amount of credibility, and for all the professionals that DO point this out, it certainly hasn't buried him alive. Dawkins probably has a substantial foot in the creation of new atheists out there. Would not a Christian scientist also create a good "foot in the door" for raising up new scientists and/or Christians? Come up with a person or people that are as effective at spreading the word about ID to the "every day person" AS WELL as the science elite, and then perhaps you'll be making some serious steps in the world. Hovind does (or did) what he does well. That doesn't mean he's always right about what he says, but he's got what it takes to get lots of people to pay attention and listen. Get some of that ability, or skill set, and it won't matter what Hovind says or does that's wrong because you'll be right there correcting it for all to see, instead of hiding in the back room and complaining about him. I believe you guys are much better than that and can make serious headway (and ARE making serious headway). Keep that up! But waving your arms around shouting, "We're not stupid Creationists!" isn't going to have a whole lot of impact on much of anyone who is paying attention anyway. The evolutionists and atheists will still always call you a creationist except for the exceptional few. And in the mean time, you'll have soured a whole swath of young earth creationists by insulting their capabilities in the process. It's like a dictator going, "I kill these hundreds of people for the betterment of the greater whole." That's a poor way to represent and demonstrate good meaningful intentions. You might all hate politics and human psychology, but it's always at play whether you like it or not. Kinvadren

Kinvadren, I hope you'll consider hanging around and becoming more aquainted with ID's discipline with regard to claims and evidence. :) Upright BiPed

I don't know, it just looks an awful lot like when some Christians try their hardest to meld Christianity and Evolutionism and then go preach about it to others. I guess that's what you consider to be Young Earth Creationism as well. A religious absorption or "glom" onto science. Something can certainly be said for that potentially being a negative, though it really does depend a lot on the context and the methods. There's nothing at all that says you can't be a religious person and a scientist at the same time. The problem arises when a person's bias or beliefs cloud their science, which can happen from atheist to religious priest and everything in between. So there's nothing really all that unique or special about Creationism vs any other worldview in this regard. The problems I have with this original post is the generalization factor, the "all creationists are stupid" implications of it, which is quite over the top. As someone else pointed out, technically Uncommon Descent IS creationist in the general sense because the idea is that some greater intelligence created, designed and implemented life. ID just tries to avoid the issue of who that designer is in an attempt to remain distant from the religious connotations. But it's one thing to distance yourself from the religious implications, and another thing to then attack religiously minded people who wish to work and or exist in a world where their spiritual/religious/philosophical lives mix with hard science. The tone being presented with this post (and comments afterward) suggests a great sense of superiority, which is part of the detriment that exists in the evolutionary community and of atheists. Now it's one thing to be more intelligent than others, but it's another thing to brag about being smarter than the next guy and point fingers. It quickly devolves into a case of "My daddy's bigger than your daddy." and results in a great amount negative division. Correcting errors is one thing. Generalizing, discriminating, insulting and demeaning others for their positions is another. For instance you can't just say, "All while people are stuck up snobs," and get away with it. It's simply not true. That's prejudice, not fact. Was Hovind and VenomFangX wrong on some things? Most definitely. But to then implicate ALL of creationism... It really is shooting allies in the back. But perhaps that's the point. Just like pro-evolution Christians trying to distance themselves from non-evolution believing Christians in order to try and gain some sort of credibility among the evolutionary elitists (which does very little good), you're trying the same tactic at the expense of all Young Earth Creationists. If the sermon is that, "I'm better than you," all the time, eventually everyone just stops listening, period. PS. I commend the efforts to be as scientifically accurate as possible. That's certainly essential. But don't become like the very elitists you guys regularly scold. This isn't an elementary school playground. Or at least I hope it isn't. Kinvadren

Kinvadren and others: I agree that the title of the article above employs a generalization that is too sweeping. Perhaps Sal could amend it to read "Why people laugh at *some* Creationists ..." However, I think some people here are not seeing Sal's point. Sal is not upset merely that Kent Hovind made some scientific mistakes. Sal is upset by the attitude behind the mistakes. Mistakes like these, when made repeatedly by certain individuals, betray a frame of mind which simply does not care about good science, but is willing to gather rumor and hearsay and treat it as science for apologetic purposes. Kent Hovind clearly is not interested in helping people to think through fundamental scientific questions, or in encouraging them to be good, critically-minded scientists. He is encouraging people to use out-of-context scientific information (in some cases false information) to construct bad defensive arguments for Christianity. This is a prostitution of science, and should be discouraged. It should be discouraged even by other Creationists. This shouldn't be set up as a combat between ID and Creationism. The point is that not only ID people, but even scientifically responsible Creationists, should be against what Hovind etc. do, and should oppose it. The Creationists who are lousy scientists or who misuse science are an embarrassment to the scientifically responsible Creationists. And they won't go away unless their statements are policed by the scientifically responsible Creationists. From my point of view as an ID supporter, a major concern is the lumping together of ID with Creationism. ID isn't Creationism, and doesn't presume Creationism. ID as such has nothing to say about Genesis or whether the Bible contains reliable science. So when Eugenie Scott and others speak of "intelligent design creationism" they mischaracterize ID. But that wouldn't be fatal to ID, if by "Creationism" the public understood Paul Nelson or John Sanford, who are clearly creationists who understand science. The problem is that the general public has hardly heard of Paul Nelson or John Sanford. They've heard of Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, etc. So the strategy of the NCSE etc. is to get the public to always hear "Kent Hovind" or "Creation Museum" or "God hid fake fossils underground to test our faith" every time they hear "ID." We ID people are fighting against this dishonest and demagogical tactic all the time. And people like Hovind are like a gift from heaven to Eugenie Scott and others who employ the tactic. They are a weapon made to order for use against Behe, Dembski, etc. That's why their views need to be sharply contrasted with the views of genuine ID proponents. Genuine ID proponents respect science; they take the time to study science and get science right; they don't misuse or prostitute science. That's Sal's point. If the Creationists won't bring their own house into order, by publically denouncing people like Hovind in every forum available -- on the web, in their churches, at Christian colleges and seminaries, in Christian journals, on Christian radio talk shows, etc. -- then ID people have to act, to protect themselves from guilt by association. So, while I think Sal's title could have been more nuanced, I think his challenge to the Creationist community is legitimate. Will thoughtful Creationists act in concert to purge their intellectual community -- and their church leadership -- of bad science and of pious ignoramuses? Timaeus

Otherwise I have no theory for why you are posting such tripe

What tripe have I posted? You've have more kind words for Hovind who preaches drivel than for me merely reporting his preaching of drivel. Anyway thanks for posting. It reinforces the reasons I prefer to hang out in the big tent of ID friends than with my own family of YECs. The intolerance evidenced against any sort of reasoned dissent is suffocating. Hovind's arguments fail on bad science. He could be let off the hook, but if he goes around advertising his organization as CREATION SCIENCE EVANGELISM he ought to be able to do something reasonable like estimate kinetic energy. That's not like I'm asking too much. Thunderf00t slammed in on it. I mean Hovind should be able to estimate the energy of an ice ball:

KE = .5 m v^2 where KE = kinetic energy of the ice ball m = mass of the ice ball v = velocity of the ice ball

This is high school physics. Hardly 4 lines of logic and reasoning. Had he applied high school physics to his Noah's flood theory, he would be promoting and spending time on such drivel as he did. The problem genetleman, is you're trying to run a scientific enterprise like a church where dissent and criticism of the leadership are mostly unwelcome. In science and the study of nature, criticism and skepticism should be welcomed.

Why do I feel like you are trying to gain traction in your argument with Sewell by attacking Hovind and some kid on Youtube, Sal?

Because you're imagining things. My origiinal post didn't even mention Sewell. The discussion of the 2nd law is taking place elsewhere. And you and others wonder why I have an axe to grind against my own family of YECs? Read this thread, and see what negative things are being said of what I wrote. Of course you'll say I deserve it. Whether true or not, it only evidences the fact we don't work well together. And frankly, that's why I chose to study science at secular schools than theology at religious institutions. scordova

So all Creationists are idiots and laughable whereas ID is completely immune to mistakes and derision…

Welcome to UD and thank you for you comments. The ID community, in terms of its leadership, make very few technical errors and almost no major errors in terms of basic science. The only major error I found, I vigorously objected to, namely use of the 2nd law as an ID argument. Not all creationists are laughable, just the ones who persistently say laughable things. Part of the reason for this is ID leadership come from science academia. They are scientists, not preachers, like Hovind and VenomFangX and Ken Ham. From the ID side: Michale Behe professor of Biochemistry Walter Bradly distinguished professor of Materials Engineering Don Johnson PhD in Chemistry and Computer Science Michael Denton, MD PhD in genetics Robert Marks distinguished professor of Electrical Engineering etc. etc. ID leadership are cut from the same culture as Darwinist leadership, namely academia. That's not to say creationists don't have leadership from academia, but the main force is theological, not scientific, as is abundantly evident in this thread. scordova

Why do I feel like you are trying to gain traction in your argument with Sewell by attacking Hovind and some kid on Youtube, Sal? Otherwise I have no theory for why you are posting such tripe. tragic mishap

Curious if it is crazy, self-contradictory or courageous, suggestive of a coccoon turning into a butterfly to see Salvador Cordova scolding his fellow 'creationists.' Is the ideology of 'creationists of the world unite!' (as righteous martyrs) becoming more apparent for how it conceals, avoids, distorts and yes even banishes certain truths? "creationists here at UD want to pick a fight with me merely because I pointed out someone’s basic SCIENTIFIC errors." ... "creationists here are unwilling to vigoursly oppose bad science coming out of fellow creationists merely because they are creationists." - scordova Here's what a N. American Orthodox Priest has to say about 'creationists' - they are 'Dancing with Unicorns'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE6Y-HMOPXs p.s. was I mistaken in thinking that 'IDers' was more polite than 'IDists'? Gregory

Anyway, for a little perspective, we have actual college professors, with actual PhDs, all too willing to do their own “driveling” of young minds into a fantastic lie; one which is much harder to believe probably than anything Hovind, VFX, or the like have said (so, what good is an actual professorship or actual PhD then?).

Exactly! A flood of drivel! butifnot

Sal get real. Creationists are not some secret society all bound together and having Hovind as an ambassador. You cant possibly be unaware that CREATIONISTS have responded to Hovind for years! You didn't point out Hovinds and venom drivel, you painted it as the creationist position - its not, its old news. Bad science is rampant everywhere

"But I find it distressing that creationists here are unwilling to vigoursly oppose bad science coming out of fellow creationists merely because they are creationists"

Again, your not breaking a story here. Your condescending, stereotype is ignorant and offensive. Guess what, as you know science has been hijacked by religious zealots for better than a hundred years. A real objective look at the observations reveals that most evidence is consistent with youth. Yes, creationist look at the same evidence as everyone else. We ALL have a bias, creationist scientist have no more bias than anyone else. "You people", thats how you sound. I look forward to another expose of 'why people laugh at evolutionists'. Hope I can solve the captcha with my creationist intellect so I can post this By the way here are creation scientists responding to Hovind - IN 2002 ! http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind butifnot

I have been lurking on this website (and many other similar) sights for quite a while now, but I finally decided to sign up so I could comment. Hovind may make some big mistakes at times, however, who doesn't make mistakes now and then. That's not to say he's blameless or immune to any sort of criticism because he's a Christian trying to do a good thing. But there is a lot of good that Hovind and his kind have done in lots of different ways. For instance, imagine all of the young people that have seen his videos and talks and thought, "Wow that's awesome! I thought science kills Christian beliefs! I want to be a scientist, or study it more!" Case in point, myself. Hovind was my first introduction to Christian science apologetics and from there I climbed the ladder to studying a ton of scientific data with regards to many of the same topics Hovind covers. Quite literally Hovind was a big part of my inspiration. That doesn't excuse scientific mistakes, but it does mean that he can have a great positive impact on Christians in a world where so many of them think that science and Christianity are not at all compatible. Also, who HASN'T made mistakes at times when it comes to speaking, writing or studying science? Tons of people have made blunders big and small over the centuries. Does that completely discredit everything they stand for or have ever done? Obviously not, as tons of professional scientists have had many of their beliefs greatly corrected over the years and are still very much professional scientists. Mistakes on their own do not mean a person is completely irrelevant or that the person should be silenced. I find it a little shocking that someone who stands within a community that is notoriously prejudiced against would turn around and perform the exact same derogatory function towards a person who holds closer to some of the key points than evolutionists do. That's like shooting an ally in the back and like becoming the very sort of person that you despise when such actions are done towards you. I advanced well beyond Hovind a long time ago, but he was one of the first kick starts of interest in how science and Christianity do not have to be enemies or at odds with each other. The final point I want to make is that the title of this article is heavily generalized. "Why people laugh at Creationists". So all Creationists are idiots and laughable whereas ID is completely immune to mistakes and derision... The gross generalization in that title is demeaning to your intelligence and the intelligence of all the people who read and post here. You point towards Hovind and VenomFangX. They are not the only Creationists out there by any means. You're guilty of doing the exact same thing as atheists with regards to Intelligent Design, over generalizing and grouping an entire camp into the pockets of a few poor representatives of that movement. Very sad. Kinvadren

Scordova, I think your post was not well written. And saying you don't want these guys on your team!? That's flat out bad taste (it almost sounded like you were telling them to go to hell). Anyway, for a little perspective, we have actual college professors, with actual PhDs, all too willing to do their own "driveling" of young minds into a fantastic lie; one which is much harder to believe probably than anything Hovind, VFX, or the like have said (so, what good is an actual professorship or actual PhD then?). Hovind and VFX are out there telling people what a crock the lie is, and certainly mix in some drivel I'm sure. But, even if it were all drivel, it would at least be the kind that opens young people's minds to think for themselves (or at least that it's an option), which is WAAAAY more than the evo-profs do to "help" our kids. It is very unlikely that many are going to become hardcore followers of either of these two, and if some do, they are the ones who would have followed the hardline evolutionists if it were their only other option. Sorry! You should be thankful they are "on your team". Brent

Here is more info about Hovind's PhD "dissertation". http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm With the recent passing of Skip Evans, all of this came to my attention because Skip was instrumental in helping elaborate some of Hovind's activities. Hence, my inspiration for posting on Hovind. scordova

Tembew: It’s like picking a fight with everyone in a bar because one person wanted to fight you.

I beg to differ. I call someone out who is supposedly an ambassador for Christian creationists for using drivel in their arguments. They should essentially be fired from their post as some sort of spokesperson for creationism. Yet when I point out highlight their drivel, creationists here at UD want to pick a fight with me merely because I pointed out someone's basic SCIENTIFIC errors. Such attitides are a blight on creationism, and by way of association, ID. You hardly had anything to say about the disservice Hovind and VenomFangX have done. Sure they've done some good, but that doesn't given them license to teach horrible science. I liked Thunderf00t's videos. That's a pointed way of telling it like it is. To be fair, Thunderf00t picked on the less capable creationists. He wouldn't fare as well with someone at his university by the name of John Sanford who is a YEC. But I find it distressing that creationists here are unwilling to vigoursly oppose bad science coming out of fellow creationists merely because they are creationists. I wouldn't have been so adamant if these were innocent errors but they are serious, and that isn't good if you're like Kent Hovind who claims to be doing SCIENTIFIC EVANGELISM. If he billed himself just as a preacher with no science skills, that would be more honest, not some "scientist". scordova

Sal criticises a couple of loony creationists and what happens? He gets attacked by regular inhabitants of this website. The Big Tent of ID is flapping its doors. timothya

Sal: You've walked the halls of academia for what, now, two years? Or is it three? And I'm sure you've run into some very educated and very smart professors there--likable people, and probably tending toward atheism. And when they speak to you about anti-evolution (because you're either for 'it' or agin 'it'), they seem to speak in earnest, and to be truly offended by the crassness and the uneducated nature of some of those who attack. And that can make the evolutionist side look more temperate and reasonable than you may have thought before. I'm sure your horizons are expanding. But, beware. These people are not your friends. They will seem humble and earnest, and genuinely interested in true science, true discovery of the truth. But, likely, they're not. They're interested only in their way of looking at things. And they're enamored of how 'objective' they are, and how, well, 'learned' they are--themselves, and those who are like-minded. But, all you have to do is push back on them a little. Just let them see that you find their views to be wrong, and then you will see just what they're made of. Maybe you should see the film, "Expelled" again, just to remind yourself of who you're really dealing with. All of this reminds me of Rush Limbaugh's advice to new-elected Republicans coming to Washington, DC for the first time. He tells them that liberals will never be their friends. That they'll smile and seem like great guys, but that all they're interested in is getting you to do their bidding, and to get you to go along with hare-brained ideas. So, again: be aware. Everything you've said here is predicated on the premise that---take notice here---ID is kind of like "Creationism." Well, Michael Behe is a Catholic. I'm a Catholic. I have never been, nor will I ever be (unless conclusive scientific evidence demonstrates otherwise) a Creationist. So, ID is not the same as Creationism no matter what the judge ruled in the Dover trial. This is simply a ploy by the Darwinists. The ACLU used this ploy in Dover. The Darwinists use it as a ploy in bludgeoning ID. But, it is no more than that: a polemical trick. There are 'creationists', and Creationists. The Darwinists don't bother to distinguish. Why? Because it's convenient for them to lump the two together because it suits their purpose of attacking IDers. Now, to the Darwinists, I'm a "creationist." Which is to say that unless you believe in Darwinism, then you must believe that God individually created every living species. But who believes this? Not I. And what about the people who lived at the time of Darwin? Did they believe that the various breeds that were being produced by breeders were individually created by God? Of course not. Mules have been around for a long time. The whole idea of phenotypic plasticity has been along for a long time. Cross-breeding has been around for a long time. But, Darwin used this caricature of religious views as a straw-man argument to buttress his theory. And modern-day Darwinists do the same thing---because, otherwise, they're required to defend the indefensible. It's much easier to cry "creationist!!" So, as I see it, the real problem here is that somehow you've accepted the Darwinist position that ID and Creationism (=creationism) are the same things. Or you're willing, at the very least, to consider the possibility they they "honestly" are troubled by these wierdo Creationists. But this is no more than just a disengenous equivocation on the part of Darwinists', who utilize it as a means to obfuscate their paucity of explanatory power. (IOW, "Whose word are you going to take: this religious nut who is obviously biased by their religious beliefs, or me, this objective scientist who has no ax to grind?" And, hence, they don't have to employ scientific arguments; just smear.) Again, don't think you're dealing with objective, reasonable people, 'who don't have an ax to grind.' Just listen to Richard Dawkins: "Darwin made it possible for it to be a respectable atheist." That's why they cling to Darwinism. And it is they who are biased, since to accept that non-material causes brought about life would be tantamount to having to admit that God MAY exist. So all these reasonable people 'circle the wagons' and then start picking off the scalps of easy prey---like the guys in the videos. And then they go off feeling very superior. And should you agree with them, they won't think anything more of you. Unless you accept their point of view, you're but an IDiot, and no more. So, Sal, don't try and gain either the acceptance or the respect of the Darwinists. You do this in vain. And you end up tilting at windmills. BTW, in that first video, interestingly enough, a recent study documented that, IIRC, somewhere in Texas/Soutwest, a storm that dropped a fair amount of water ended up eroding a kind of canyon in almost no time at all. And they said they needed to rethink their ideas about how much time it would take to form something like the Grand Canyon. So, whoever that guy was on the video, he had a very legitimate point to make: viz., that the eons of time that are invoked when pointing to the Grand Canyon could be something that is way off in its estimation. And, of course, the "five minutes" he referred to was simply a way of saying "in an extremely short period of time." And I'm sure that he had "liquid" water in mind, not "ice," when he commented about other planets (IOW, no other place is like Earth with 70% of its surface covered by water). Should he have been more nuanced? Of course. But, let's remember, the video shows comments that were taken out of context. And, of course, when you want to caricature something, that's exactly what you do: you throw out all proportion. So, our learned and wise 'atheist' has some explaining to do himself. For the nth time, I simply refuse to accept that ID and Scientific Creationism are equivalent. To claim this is like claiming that "all Republicans are racists." This is what the liberal mind believes; nothing you say or point out can change their views. After all, they're so smart. Why should they listen to you--who obviously are not so smart or else you wouldn't be open to these 'primitive' views of religionists. And, in the academy, only the 'liberal mind' is permitted. That is: "Conservatives need not apply." So, be careful. PaV

Dear Butifnot I agree with you this article explains it well in my opinion. http://jesse.usra.edu/archive/jesse03-400-05/breitermanfinal.html Andre Andre

scordova: Yes, some creationists say some pretty stupid things, and when they do, they damage the credibility of ID because the public has been taught (wrongly) to associate ID with creationism. So I'm all for dumping on Kent Hovind (and people whose scientific education is at a level similar to his, and like him do not have the good sense to keep their mouths shut on scientific topics). On the other hand, I wish that Thunderf00t would learn the proper pronunciation of the word "nuclear." Timaeus

I would like to put a different perspective on this, I use to be a materialist and a few years back while on holiday a friend of mine who was a creationist convinced me to watch some Hovind videos. I initially did it for laughs because you know how crazy these creationist cooks can be right? I think it was after the third or fourth video that a light went one and some of the stuff said really got me thinking and questioning that which I have believed or assumed for so long. Back from holiday the first thing I did was gather all the information on what I knew or thought I knew and compared it with what was out there as opposing theories (ID and creationism). Of course once you do this and actually look at the evidence, many of you know like I do today that it becomes a no contest and Darwinism and its illogical assumptions get thrown into the toilet where it belongs. Don't underestimate the importance of what some of those crackpots have to say, it might be 90% junk but there are truth bits that really gets the grey matter going into critical thinking mode and that is exactly what people need. Am I a Hovind supporter? Absolutely not! Did his crackpot theories instigate me to research things and find the truth? The answer is yes! Andre

Sal, you really think creationists are just dumb? Please, of course many are brilliant and most are just as smart as anyone else. Your view is an uniformed caricature. Want Drivel?? Cosmology is a ridiculous joke, maybe surpassing evolution. You are unable to grasp the deep implications of the reality that our construct of thermo is pointing to, Sewell is dead on. Long ages are a religious canon which is now continually at odds with observation. Religious adherence to long ages is MORE 'fundamentalist' than that of YEC'ers. "why people laugh at ________" Is just snarky and snotty. butifnot

I once had my college physical chemistry prof laugh at George W. Bush's plan to develop fuel cells for cars instead of using oil. He said it was stupid because hydrogen explodes, like the Hindenburg. The same man spent several minutes of class time explaining to us how all organic chemists descend from two European families. We all have our examples of dumb things people believe. I don't appreciate it when creationists are wrong either. I don't tolerate stupidity from anyone. But I know who God prefers. He sees faith or lack of it, and everything else is nothing. The cause of Christ doesn't require anything but what God has already done and what he's going to do. So I think it would behoove you Sal, to calm down a bit. "There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously - no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption." C.S. Lewis tragic mishap

ba77: "That is why I, personally, object to what I see as a low road departure for him, especially when addressing people not directly opposed to him. " The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's a valid concept in warfare or anything in social nuances that resembles warfare. And I have no objection to your perspective on that as such. But there's another common aphorism: Separate the wheat from the chaff. Of course, that's quite like warfare itself as you can't even get started until you beat everything gratuitously with agricultural nunchuks. Maus

forgot to say this too. You should remember that not all creationists are like these 2. This article is too much like a Darwinist/atheist way of thinking. Maybe I am less sensitive to this stuff since I see some beliefs about evolution just as drivel...ous as u might see Hovind's and other's statements. tembew

@scordova : "Please watch the video, and tell me if think it is OK to teach kids violations of thermodynamics that are basic to every day life." it would be a good way to teach them the principles of thermodynamics that are basic to everyday life... I'm with bornagain77 on that last post. It's like picking a fight with everyone in a bar because one person wanted to fight you. Should remember too that, as far as they are concerned, you are a creationist. I'd like to see Hovind's response to these corrections. tembew

Huh? Joe

And with people like that either treat them as entertainment or ignore them.

Well, you should have no problem with criticizing pseudoscience, especially since some of the individuals here actually give some credence to it. Genomicus

Sal- they are just people. And with people like that either treat them as entertainment or ignore them. They ain't on anybody's side but their own. They speak for themselves. Joe

Ba77, With "friends" like Hovind and VenomFang X, who needs enemies? I don't want these guys on my team. I will call out Christian Darwinists on their drivel, I'll also call out Christian Creationists on their drivel. What Hovind said are no minor errors. Evolutionary theory ranks better than what Hovind claimed about Noah's flood being caused by an ice comet. It's ok to make mistakes, but getting up on stage like Hovind and VenomFangX without some rudimentary study? Bad.... Sal scordova

tembew:

it actually might. I don’t know what your problem with hovind is tho.

You don't want to teach your kids the stuff Kent Hovind preaches, do you? Every argument he brings to the table can easily be shown to be wrong and he messes up in basic biology. I find it quite refreshing that ID proponents (e.g., scordova) are starting to take YE creationists to task for their erroneous arguments. This is a second post by scordova for which I salute him (the other one being his critique of Sewell's arguments). A nice quote from scordova:

That’s exactly the attitude I find distressing in some creationists. I’m now even more glad to have posted what I did because it confirms the willingness to side with Creationists merely because they are creationists rather than side with the truth. Don’t you see, such attitudes do not help advance the truth?

Remember, what we're interested here is in the advancement of human knowledge. We're not interested - or we shouldn't be - in advancing our own agendas. Don't side with creationists just because they're creationists. Don't side with ID proponents just because they're ID proponents. Don't side with the Darwinian side just because they're the scientific community. Don't conform to any orthodoxy just because it is the orthodoxy, be it creationist or ID or Darwinian. Ya see, some people are actually interested only in furthering progress in science. And to that end, critiquing flawed arguments - wherever it comes from - is very needed. Genomicus

Well maus, I've learned, the hard way, to let the brute facts do my hard lifting, and 'insulting', of neo-Darwinists for me. And have seen Sal use much the same tactic for most of the time he has posted on UD, sometimes with deep insights. That is why I, personally, object to what I see as a low road departure for him, especially when addressing people not directly opposed to him. Granted it is not really much of a departure into rudeness as compared to say what Myers' or Moran's blog would probably have, but none-the-less, when picking bones with friends I should expect the respect, as well as level of scholarship, from Sal to be his best. That is why I voiced my disappointment with this post (as well as with Sal's post against Dr. Sewell) bornagain77

I am only familiar with his evolution talks.

Did you watch the short video on Hovind's ice-comet theory of Noah's flood? I provided a link above. It is a short video. Hovind invoked ideas that are contrary to what engineers and physicists use to make refrigerators heaters or other means of converting mechanical energy into heat. That bothers me a lot. It's drivel. So what if Hovind is anti-evolution, it doesn't let him off the hook. If he is so careless with ideas that could be controverted by a 2nd year physics or engineering student....maybe even a high school student, it doesn't lend much credibility to his criticisms of evolution. Please watch the video, and tell me if think it is OK to teach kids violations of thermodynamics that are basic to every day life. Any way, thank you for responding. It reinforces the reason I just don't like mingling in creationist circles. The willingness of some creationists to defend creationist ignorance and errors is revolting. Just because someone is fighting the errors of Darwin doesn't give them license to desecrate basic understanding of engineering physics. Don't you see. The willingness to let drivel like this get a pass actually hurts the integrity of creationism and by way of extension those in ID (who aren't even creationists). scordova

tembew, right on. Chance Ratcliff

I'm not siding with hovind. I am only familiar with his evolution talks. You apparently think Kids being exposed to "Dr Dino" means you must teach them he is right about everything. It simply is a means to teach thinking skills. Some of what he says about evolution has value and some of his personal theories can be critically assessed to show how they are wrong. The same way I think students should be taught how to think with evolution (so they can understand where scientists who accept it have gone wrong and improve on that). Is teaching students just about feeding them whatever you believe, as fact? Seems that is what you think it is. one thing i do not like about those videos is the generalization. Those seem like Hovind's own ideas, yet they are presented to damn all creationists. I am sure there are a lot of theories floating around out there. tembew

ba77: "You rather, IMO, ungraciously, like a bull in a china shop, did just the same thing not too long ago with Dr. Sewell on thermodynamics,," And Evolution got its teeth in by such Bulls as Huxley. Thereafter making repeated pleas that profound flights of fancy and fallacy should be treated with kid gloves rather than called out directly and unequivocally as vapid nonsense. It's worth noting that Engineers 'get things done' rather than pick polite navel-fuzz over tea in the parlor. And they regularly try to murder each other over a difference of 2 threads per inch before going out to the bar after work as friends. The significant difference? Engineering is pure empiricism and allows no room for excuses about models and metaphysical nonsense that is epistemically opaque without access to time machines. chris haynes: "So let’s use honest language. We’re Creationists. And we’re wining." What's this 'we' nonsense? I neither Believe ID nor Believe Evolution. But I support the place of both as valid research programs worthy of consideration in the general sense. Does that make me an Theistic Atheist or an Atheistic Theist? Maus

I don’t know what your problem with hovind is tho.

Did you watch Thunderf00t's video on Hovind's ice ball causing Noah's flood? You think believing students of science shouldn't be enraged with Hovind's drivel offered up as representing the Christian faith? The blind acceptance of such drivel just because it is claimed to defend the name of Christ is distressing. This drivel doesn't help Christ's cause. It needs to go, and now that Hovind is in a federal penetentiary, at least he's being slowed down.

I asked: Feeding them Dr. Dino drivel won’t do this will it?

you responded

it actually might.

That's exactly the attitude I find distressing in some creationists. I'm now even more glad to have posted what I did because it confirms the willingness to side with Creationists merely because they are creationists rather than side with the truth. Don't you see, such attitudes do not help advance the truth? scordova

it actually might. I don't know what your problem with hovind is tho. tembew

We need to reach the children and teach them how to think

Feeding them Dr. Dino drivel won't do this will it? scordova

The very term "I.D." is inaccurate, and wussie. Whatever happened, your intelligent being didnt just "design" stuff, leaving behind blueprints to gather dust. No, he did much more. He created it. So let's use honest language. We're Creationists. And we're wining. Look at naturalistic abiogenisis, the current state of evolutionary theory, the infinite multiverse. When youre on a roll, you dont pull punches. chris haynes

Sal, I’ve noticed a tendency of yours of late to ‘step on toes’ if you see people in conflict with what the empirical evidence actually says

Well, yeah! scordova

i used to watch hovind. Never really found a big problem with him I just upgraded, in a sense, to more scholarly opponents of evolution. I guess I realized that reason and common sense weren't going to reach the evolutionists, but now I know science won't either. Often they can't even understand the issues much less be convinced by them. Unfortunately the evolutionists avoid debates (like Dawkins) so they are pretty insulated. tembew

I suspect atheists make up the majority of the audience for Hovind and VFX. I have never met a creationist who pays attention to either of these guys. Atheists (such as thunderfoot) spend countless hours knocking over strawmen and then crowing about their victories. bevets

This is why people hate apples but have a harder time picking oranges. It sounds like Sal is saying that either creationists should never advance unsound arguments, or scholars should be the only ones participating in the debate. Chance Ratcliff

This article is in terrible taste. As far as the opposition is concerned, you are a creationist. That you actually post so many of that guy's videos was surprising. An atheist posted one of his videos to me once and i was less than impressed. The reason u get laughed at (as well as creationists) is because your views are not fitting that of the materialists. They see the acceptance of anything beyond the physical as a belief in fairy-tales. There is no reason to belittle creationists in an article like this. You are being no better than the small minded atheists and evolutionists. claiming that kent hovind and that other guy lost is presumptuous. Don't think I ever saw Hovind lose when i started researching this issue. A child (not to say hovind is bad. No insults) could challenge evolution because it is literally indefensible. You have to bend around and assume rubbish just to sound even remotely plausible. Neither science nor simple reasoning can convince evolutionists. I doubt their minds will ever change. We need to reach the children and teach them how to think so that this failure of a theory can be gotten rid of. tembew

Sal, I've noticed a tendency of yours of late to 'step on toes' if you see people in conflict with what the empirical evidence actually says (which might be one of the reasons why you were drawn to ID in the first place). You rather, IMO, ungraciously, like a bull in a china shop, did just the same thing not too long ago with Dr. Sewell on thermodynamics,,

Physicist Rob Sheldon offers some thoughts on Sal Cordova vs. Granville Sewell on 2nd Law Thermo https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/physicist-rob-sheldon-offers-some-thoughts-on-sal-cordova-vs-granville-sewell-on-2nd-law-thermo/

And now you've done it here by citing wikipedia (hardly a unbiased source, and, of all people, Thunderf00t against YEC's. Yet Thunderf00t is hardly of impeccable reputation as to his honesty of personal character in his attacks. Please note this rebuttal of his attack on Dr. William Lane Craig which backfires extremely badly for thunderfoot since his honesty itself was impeached in the backfire of his attack:

Thunderf00t vs William Lane Craig H-Index Backfires - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysfy70Z0Wrc

Now Sal, this is not to say that I agree with the YEC cosmological position, for I certainly do not, but it seems to me you could be more charitable with your refutation of their entire position than to cite thunderfoot and the anti ID and YEC propaganda mill wikipedia.,,, Moreover to somewhat stand up for the work done by YEC's, I have to say that while I strongly disagree with their cosmology, their work in biology has been cutting edge in many instances. For primary example, YEC Dr. Sanford was a few years ahead of Dr. Behe in finding that Genetic Entropy was the overriding rule governing all biological adaptations, 2005 to 2010 respectively:

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome - 2005 http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/1599190028 Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086

Whereas Dr. Behe, in what can be argued to be a more 'meticulous ID path', came out with this peer-reviewed paper in 2010:

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:

Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00

Thus Sal, although I am certainly a 'bull in a china shop' myself as to imparting the proper delicate touch of diplomacy that needs to be imparted when we strongly disagree with people, perhaps we both can try to be more gentle in these matters when it comes to disagreeing with people?!? Music: Natalie Grant - Alive (Resurrection music video) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX bornagain77