Spread this far and wide

[gridlore]

Scientific American's 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.

I am ashamed that people I share a nationality with are dumb enough to accept the pablum that is creationism.

Comments

[nolly.livejournal.com]

First off, not all creationists are young earth creationists, and I resent that the broader term is being treated as a synonym for the more specific one.

I was raised a young earth creationist. Over half the points in that article are things I never heard. Furthermore, the mere title is enough to render this article useless as an outreach tool.

I'd like to see a rational, scientific, non-insulting analysis of actual Young Earth material -- Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" (easily done, I'm sure; many conservative Christians disagree with most of what Chick has to say, but it's a starting point), materials from the Institute for Creation Science, etc. Non-insulting is key -- most people who are young earth creationists simply lack the scientific background to see the flaws in the YE arguments. If someone you consider an authority figure tells you that fossil trees have been found crossing multiple strata while are allegedly millions of years apart in age, and you don't know much about geology, etc., chances are good that you will believe this means that the dating methods used to determine the age of the strata are wrong. If an authority figure tells you that strata are dated by the fossils found in them and the fossils are dated by the strata where they're found, and you don't know much about radioactive age dating or any other dating methods, chances are good that you will dimiss related claims from other, unknown-to-you, sources.

The problem is not entirely one of scientific ignorance, but that's a large chunk of it, and any approach that starts by insulting the other side is going to fail.