Creationist Folk Science

A good resource in locating more information on the bunk used to debunk evolutionary science, including:

  • Men Over Ten Feet Tall
  • Ninety-Foot Tall Plum Trees bearing green leaves and fruit found frozen on an arctic island
  • Warm Weather Hippos Found in the Tundra’s Frozen Muck
  • Old, out of context quotation(s) from French scientists
  • Quotes taken out of context or misattributed to Charles Darwin, Prof. Louis Bounoure, and others

Cretinism or Evilution?: Creationist Folk Science
The difference between overly zealous evolutionists and the less astute creationists in this area, however, pertains to who disproved the original flimsy assertions and how. In the case of claims made by evolutionists, it was fellow pr-o-evolution scientists, not “creation scientists,” who dug deeper and conducted the disproofs via critical scientific investigation of the original assertions. Even today, evolutionists are so candid in revealing the nature of their finds and also admitting difficulties when it comes to fitting some evidence squarely in place, that creationists comb scientific literature just to pick out such difficulties. There is no “conspiracy” among evolutionary scientists who speak and write as candidly as they do. – But among the less astute creation scientists there is a vain repetition of outmoded claims that goes on and on, hence the term “folk science” when applied to creationism.
Furthermore, concerning “creation science” assertions, it’s the mainstream scientists, again, who point out the flaws in the creationist claims, since the majority of creationists (and their supporters) are so reluctant and/or inexperienced in digging up further relevant information regarding the claims . they assert. Often one need only check the original records of mainstream scientists to see where the creationists misread the original findings! Which just goes to show that creationist claims are often totally vacuous, either hearsay, or a misquoted or misunderstood passage from a mainstream science journal.
Of course the less astute creationists are loathe to admit that even one of the “classic” creationist “tall tales” can ever be “disproven.” Creationists like Carl Baugh, who wants to build a museum shaped like Noah’s Ark near the site of the Texas “mantracks,” seems to have never admitted making a single erroneous assertion or interpretation, though he’s changed his tune a couple times, like when he admitted that the “giant mantrack trails” pointed out by earlier creationists were indeed only dino-prints. But then he proceeded to convince himself and some others that, although the prints in the trail were made by dinosaurs, he could make out smaller “human prints” “inside” each dino-print!
Or take the case of Baugh’s discovery of a “fossil human tooth,” which he eventually allowed some scientific experts to examine under an electron microscope, and which was found to be merely a fossil fish tooth. Baugh conceded it was a fish tooth, but later retracted his concession. Baugh also found some rounded inorganic rock concretions and claimed they were the “fossilized skulls” of modern mammal species found among dinosaur remains!

Comments are closed.