Creationism makes a comeback in US

abc news ^ | Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:24am AEST | Mark Simkin

[Alien Syndrome]

In the United States the old but bitter debate between evolution and creationism is heating up again.

Three of the Republican presidential candidates do not believe in evolution and a high-tech creation museum recently opened in Kentucky.

Much of the debate has been fuelled by a book claiming the Grand Canyon, one of America's most well-known landmarks, was carved by Noah's flood rather than erosion.

Every national park has at least one gift shop - usually more - selling t-shirts, snow domes, mugs, postcards and books.

At the Grand Canyon you will find books on the canyon's history, the canyon's animals and even the canyon's deaths.

One book, Grand Canyon: A Different View, contains the following excerpt:

"Grand Canyon is not just an icon of beauty. It is a solemn witness to the mighty power of God who is not only the omnipotent creator of all things but also the avenging defender of his own holiness."

It is amazing to think a humble river was able to carve such a mighty canyon. Of course, a geologist will tell you that reflects the power of time rather than the power of the river - the canyon is millions of years old.

But Grand Canyon: A Different View presents a different perspective.

The book is compiled by Tom Vail, who has been guiding rafting trips down the Colorado River for 25 years.

He says for the first 15 years he was an evolutionist.

"In 1994 I became a Christian and started looking at the canyon as my book says, from a different view, and I started exploring the creationist model of the formation of the canyon," he said.

"What I found was all those little questions I had as an evolutionist had answers, and pretty logical answers as I looked at it."

Mr Vail's book is not some cheap pamphlet. It is a full colour coffee-table book, featuring expensive paper, sophisticated layout, spectacular photos, scientific language and lots of quotes from the Old Testament.

Not surprisingly, it is generating debate.

The gulf between creationists and mainstream scientists is as wide as the canyon itself.

The American Geological Institute and other groups demanded the book be removed from the national park.

The debate only fuelled sales of the book and Tom Vail says there is plenty of evidence inside the canyon to back his belief.

"We see some very large folding in the canyon where sedimentary layers, which are laid down horizontally, have been curved or carved in big bends, some of them 300 feet tall, and this is done without cracking the rock. How do you do that with hard rock?" he said.

"I'm definitely going against the tide here, but when you look at the evidence, there are major flaws in the dating methods, for example.

Much to the horror of mainstream scientists, creationism seems to be making a comeback in the United States.

A multi-million dollar creation museum recently opened, at least three of the Republicans running for President do not believe in evolution and Tom Vail's rafting trips are welcoming customers from as far away as Australia.

Opinion polls suggest 43 per cent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. Only 14 per cent believe humans evolved without divine involvement.

[BipolarBob]

Nope, I posted post #3.

[from occupied ga]

Since we've been told that science isn't about truth, then there must be something else

Who told you that a creationist? I have to confess you've totally confused me. What are you talking about?

[metmom]

Why are you provoking AS so much? What kind of response are you looking for?

[metmom]

And above all they’re both wrong.

You said creationism is wrong. On what basis do you make that decision? What evidence do you use to determine that?

Who told you that a creationist?

Now I'm confused here.

[Oztrich Boy]

Neanderthal and Lucy have both been proven to be apes (Neanderthal was a gorilla

Double Dog Call Tou

Cite one recognised respected Creationist who states "Neanderthal was a gorilla"

And to make it possible I will accept "recognised respected" by the Creationist community - whicch means you can sue the usual clowns - Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, or similar (I'll even give you Walter Brown and Kent Hovind)

Find one

[Oztrich Boy]

hee! "sue". When I mistype, it's awesome

I meant "use"

[stormer]

I’m not quite sure what argument you chart is supposed to support, but let’s go through the categories provided. Given that human settlement was, and continues to be, concentrated along waterways (rivers, lakes, oceans & seas), it should come as no surprise that flood events figure prominently in cultural histories. Some, in fact, rely on flooding to reinvigorate agricultural lands. That humans are spared also seems rather obvious; if they weren’t, how would the story be propagated? Obvious too is the need for a vessel; how else could one survive a flood? Especially if, for the sake of the myth, the “world” is underwater. And an agricultural society (as most early societies were), is certainly going to value animals, so that commonality seems clear. That leaves us with the two remaining categories, divine cause and warnings; you will note that each of these is only mentioned in half of all cases cited. Hardly a ringing endorsement of what you are presenting as proof.

[from occupied ga]

You said creationism is wrong. On what basis do you make that decision? What evidence do you use to determine that?

On the fact that there is not any physical evidence to support creationism nor can there ever be any evidence to support it. By the very nature of it, it is not science, but rather religion. There is plenty of physical evidence to support evolution. Creationism, at least as I understand it, basically says "here a miracle occurs."

When you're talking about scientific theories those without evidence are usually considered to be wrong. For that matter how can you prove that we all weren't created with our memories and history just five minutes ago. You can't, but I still maintain that is also wrong.

...confused...

You said science is not about truth. Au contraire, science IS about truth.

[stormer]

“...the searchers thought they would only have a few inches of snow and ice to deal with. Instead it was 268 FEET of ice.”

http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/03/gisp2-ice-core-and-age-of-earth.html

You may find this interesting. Rather than regurgitating an item some untrained “researcher” cites as PROOF for whatever hairbrained idea they support, you can actually learn from folks who study this type of thing for a living.

[metmom]

On the fact that there is not any physical evidence to support creationism nor can there ever be any evidence to support it.

There's plenty of corroboration of the creation account in the Bible by science. See post 64.There's the same physical evidence to support creation that there is to support it just happening, out of nothing, by itself.

You said science is not about truth. Au contraire, science IS about truth.

Not according to some of your compatriots. Besides, science may be about the search for truth, but it is not truth itself. It hasn't arrived yet. What has been accepted to be fact in the past is now shown to be wrong. How are you so sure that what we know now is true?

If that's the case, then you can't use science to disprove anything else, because there's no way of being sure that the science you're using is correct. You can't use something that is wrong, or even that might be wrong, to disprove something else.

[Psycho_Bunny]

"We see some very large folding in the canyon where sedimentary layers, which are laid down horizontally, have been curved or carved in big bends, some of them 300 feet tall, and this is done without cracking the rock. How do you do that with hard rock?"

If you can't figure out the obvious, you really shouldn't be writing a book about it.

[metmom]

The point was that the people looking for the planes worked on the assumption of a relatively small amount of ice buildup based on what science said it should be. They were working in assumptions, therefore, some processes occur faster than previously thought. They were working on assumptions that weren’t true. If you start out with wrong assumptions, then how can your conclusions be reliable?

[js1138]

You follow the evidence. If scientists did not routinely correct their assumptions based on evidence, you would have nothing to talk about.

The difference between science and other ways of attempting to acquire knowledge is that science is iterative.

[smug]

God created the universe over a slightly longer period of time. (A day is as a thousand years, etc.)

The book of Genesis has been misread for years. Those six days of creation were not earth days. "And the evening and the morning was the first day." note that
G D did not create our Sun until the third day according to Genesis. Therefore we can logically deduce that days in question were in fact based on another system. Possibly were a single day may in fact be Millions or Tens of Millions of Earth years long.

The advent of man I find misread as well Genesis states that man was created on the sixth day and that G D then rested. Then it tells of how G D saw that of the men he created that there was no man that tilled the soil. He then create a new man slightly different from the others, ergo Adam and Eve were created on the eight day or after. This explains where Cain got his wife from.

[Marysecretary]

Yep.

[Marysecretary]

It’s an amazing section and fills me with awe everytime I read it. Now, I can’t really say the same for NUMBERS (LOL). Mxxx

[Marysecretary]

No, I can’t. I’ve read it over the years and been amazed that so many religions have the same story of the flood. I believe it to be true because the Bible says so, but it’s also written in other places. Google it.

[js1138]

It’s as if floods were fairly common.

[Boxen]

Source of chart?