"Interpretation of Evidence": More Creationist Garbage

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:

Objective Ministries: Creation Science Fair 2001 said:

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)

Click to expand...

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.

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.

AiG Statement of Faith said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I shouldn't have to explain why this is bad science.

AiG Statement of Faith said:

The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

Click to expand...

More baseless assumptions, apparently thrown in just because.

AiG Statement of Faith said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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/

What do I think about the matter? I think you're overreacting if you really believe this is a big deal and will cast us into a second Dark Ages. It's just silly:-p. THESE PEOPLE are silly. Do you really think you could get them to read/analyze the experiment on Comparative Embryology without making them uncomfortable/call it blasphemy?

How big a role does interpretation play? Well, if an overwhelmingly number of scientists interpret evolution based on the current results the same way(support), then it'd have to be a HUGE conspiracy for it to all be a misinterpretation.

I'm actually interested in what some of the theists in the DH have to say about this. Will they support these childish competitions or frown upon them?

If you must know what I think, I think these people are just another example of an extreme group that shouldn't be taken seriously. Extremes have been proven through time to be a bad things in the long run.


I'd have to agree with Zero Beat. With all the evidence of evolution as compared to the faith in this scripture, it's really hard to say that there's much to interpret at all. There have been enough experiments and tests run to predict that evolution is something that is real.

RDK, that's kind of silly. Pokemon being used as an actual example as to how evolution is wrong? Although, if I were one of the judges, I would still have given that notable mention, just because I find it funny.
Plus, if you don't want to participate in the Dark Ages, go ahead. Move to Europe.
Although, how will this bring a Dark Age? Isn't that kind of... exaggerated?

It's just another sad example of religious brainwashing. I do think that something needs to be done about the lack of science teaching in religious schools.

My 8th grade year, someone asked my science teacher, "What's evolution?" Her response was "I would like to tell you, but I'm not allowed to because we don't believe it happened"

Mewter said:

RDK, that's kind of silly. Pokemon being used as an actual example as to how evolution is wrong? Although, if I were one of the judges, I would still have given that notable mention, just because I find it funny.
Plus, if you don't want to participate in the Dark Ages, go ahead. Move to Europe.
Although, how will this bring a Dark Age? Isn't that kind of... exaggerated?

Click to expand...

Not really.
Think about it:
Dark ages was basically a time when science was stopped due to religion.
If we stop stem-cell research due to pro-life ideals, we are basically stopping science once again to due the religious belief of christians who say life begins at conception.
It won't be like, WOMG, LET'S KILL EACH OTHER, AND BURN DOWN THE HOUSES, but it will be like, hey! THAT'S AGAINST RELIGION! STOP SCIENCE, STOP SCIENCE!

Fortunately, these people are now in the minority or at the very least, not in power (as opposed to the "dark ages") and we can just laugh at them rather than take them seriously.

I think a large part of this is being uninformed.

For example, look at what we know about the past, specifically evolution. A lot of it is guesswork and based on a very, very small amount of fossils. Does this mean evolution is a weak theory? Not at all, all that those weak fossils means is that we're not fully sure on how the H. Habilis species was, or whether H. habilis and H. rudolfensis were different species, or if we go further back in time then we're not fully sure exactly how early life was, we can only make logical estimates. There could easily be new evidence that pops up that shows us "oh, so terrestrial creatures existed a long time before we thought", or that "oh, birds didn't develop this way, odd", or "oh. H. cepranensis was just a weird member of H. erectus", or "oh, there's another full species in between us and H. erectus". None of those change the theory of evolution at all, all they change is the specifics of certain strands of it.

It's similar to looking at an old computer. We can tell "ok, this is a hardrive, this is a motherboard, this is Ram, it's a computer", but then have a lot of trouble deciding what information was on the computer.

Actually that's not that good of an example, but I'll keep it.

Just for the record, evolution is (now) mostly based on molecular and genetic evidence which is very strong and quite conclusive, rather than a relatively small number of fossils in which there was a lot more guesswork involved.

But I see what you're saying. We definitely don't have all or even most of the answers. But that doesn't mean evolution (or any other concepts) is wrong, just that we are working on how some of it happened (and not whether it happened).

GoldShadow said:

Fortunately, these people are now in the minority or at the very least, not in power (as opposed to the "dark ages") and we can just laugh at them rather than take them seriously.

Click to expand...

Give it 4 years, they'll be in power again.
And trust me, I can't just laugh at them when they shout over any logical reasoning I give. >_>

how many people actually argue for the creationist theory? I'm sure there are a few, but, idk, it always seemed to me to be overdramatized as an actual debated point, and has become more of a strawman.
most religious people don't even believe it... and those that do aren't usually contending the science behind evolution but believe it in for reasons apart from that.
lol i guess i'm just tired of the evolution topic lol sorry ^^

But also, i do agree with evolution ^^ if god did create the world (4000 years ago or w/e), why would he create fossil records, that would indicate otherwise? I guess just the fact that fossils do exist sort of semiproves the point...
I still think its possible he could (if he exists) have created the universe though.

There are actually sizable and surprisingly influential groups of people who are creationists, or, at least, try to deny evolution.

There are even elected officials who don't believe in evolution. So, it is a real topic, and hardly a strawman.

Hard proof is needed to convince those who don't believe in evolution. And even then, people will deny.

Science is deniable.

Lol. Take a good look at me!

If they ask for hard proof, then ask for hard proof of the great flood, jesus' miracles, etc. When they say "the bible", ask for proof that it's proof.