Recently, and to my great displeasure, I had the misfortune of stumbling across information concerning the annual "Creation Science Fair", hosted in part by Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham of the Creation Museum. This should in the very least cause some alarm to those who are familiar with the evolution / creation debate.
If they are allowed to run their course, proponents of creationism and ID would selectively tear down centuries' worth of scientific advancement in order to "win back" American culture for God. Considering the tactics and lack of critical thinking skills commonly displayed by this group of people, a scientific and intellectual backtracking of this magnitude would no doubt cast us into a second Dark Ages.
But about the actual science fair. If you're wondering why you should be worried about this, there is already a problem. When it comes down to it, a win in a debate for an evolutionist might not be interpreted the same in the minds of the public, which is why most prominent evolutionists tend to stay away from such debates. That being said, to allow this sort of thing to continue is a disservice to the modern scientific community.
Just take a look at some of the winners and runners-up from a past Creation Science Fair:
But just take a look at the criteria that children have to agree to in order to enter into the upcoming mega-fair. AiG calls it the "Statement of Faith":
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
There are several key statements that should especially worry you.
I shouldn't have to explain why this is bad science.
In any case, the point that they seem to be missing is that data is data. As a scientist, if you properly carry out and document your trials and experiments in an accurate and professional manner, the "evidence" should speak for itself. Of course, there is always interpretation involved with scientific inquiry, but that's beside the point. Claiming that "evidence" is highly interpretive is a trademark of the creationist camp, and it's a byproduct of supporting an untenable position that requires the ability to bend the evidence to fit the framework. Any scientist worth his salt knows that this is ***-backwards.
This is what the heart of the debate comes down to. What do you think about the matter? How big a role does interpretation play in the scientific process?
In any case, I look forward to entering the Creation Science Fair contest myself. All I have to do is fill a homemade box with dirt and water, throw in some mammal toys and dinosaur toys, and then drain the water. I’m sure the dinos will end up near the bottom of mud with mammals near the top. That is unless some unseen Satanic force mixes them up on purpose.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/m...-to-the-creation-museum-science-fair-in-2010/
If they are allowed to run their course, proponents of creationism and ID would selectively tear down centuries' worth of scientific advancement in order to "win back" American culture for God. Considering the tactics and lack of critical thinking skills commonly displayed by this group of people, a scientific and intellectual backtracking of this magnitude would no doubt cast us into a second Dark Ages.
But about the actual science fair. If you're wondering why you should be worried about this, there is already a problem. When it comes down to it, a win in a debate for an evolutionist might not be interpreted the same in the minds of the public, which is why most prominent evolutionists tend to stay away from such debates. That being said, to allow this sort of thing to continue is a disservice to the modern scientific community.
Just take a look at some of the winners and runners-up from a past Creation Science Fair:
Pine cones are complicated? I feel sorry for these poor kids who are getting duped out of a solid education. The very fact that Pokemon is being used as a refutation against evolution shows misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and sheer ignorance on a cosmological scale.1st Place: "My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)"
Cassidy Turnbull (grade 5) presented her uncle, Steve. She also showed photographs of monkeys and invited fairgoers to note the differences between her uncle and the monkeys. She tried to feed her uncle bananas, but he declined to eat them. Cassidy has conclusively shown that her uncle is no monkey.
2nd Place: "Pine Cones Are Complicated"
David Block and Trevor Murry (grades 4) showed how specifically complicated pine cones are and how they reveal God's design in nature.
Honorable Mention:
"God Made Kitty" - Sally Reister (grade 3)
"The Bible Says Creation" - Aaron Kent (grade 5)
"Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False" - Paul Sanborn (grade 4)
But just take a look at the criteria that children have to agree to in order to enter into the upcoming mega-fair. AiG calls it the "Statement of Faith":
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
There are several key statements that should especially worry you.
This basically means that any presentation given must be biased from the start to presuppose the factual nature of the creation account. They're taking an a priori assumption and modeling the rest of the competition around that.The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
I shouldn't have to explain why this is bad science.
More baseless assumptions, apparently thrown in just because.The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
Now this is a fun one. Anyone who is familiar with the axioms of scientific investigation knows that the above statement is the exact opposite of how one should conduct science. The ironic part about it is that creationists accuse evolutionists of doing this all the time; they say that the evidence is automatically shoved into the win pile because we're working within an evolutionary framework. It's counter-intuitive and highly hypocritical for them to make "blinding yourself to the evidence if it doesn't inherently support the creation account" a criteria for a science fair.By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
In any case, the point that they seem to be missing is that data is data. As a scientist, if you properly carry out and document your trials and experiments in an accurate and professional manner, the "evidence" should speak for itself. Of course, there is always interpretation involved with scientific inquiry, but that's beside the point. Claiming that "evidence" is highly interpretive is a trademark of the creationist camp, and it's a byproduct of supporting an untenable position that requires the ability to bend the evidence to fit the framework. Any scientist worth his salt knows that this is ***-backwards.
This is what the heart of the debate comes down to. What do you think about the matter? How big a role does interpretation play in the scientific process?
In any case, I look forward to entering the Creation Science Fair contest myself. All I have to do is fill a homemade box with dirt and water, throw in some mammal toys and dinosaur toys, and then drain the water. I’m sure the dinos will end up near the bottom of mud with mammals near the top. That is unless some unseen Satanic force mixes them up on purpose.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/m...-to-the-creation-museum-science-fair-in-2010/