By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them...
The behavior of many (not all) opponents of young-earth creationists tells a fascinating story in itself. (See also advice on how to trap a judgmental humanist.)
19. More on Ian Plimer (see #8, 13, 14 below). Committee investigation concludes Plimer's book, Telling Lies for God, is itself filled with lies and baseless accusations. Also, information on Plimer's latest witch-hunt and the media frenzy in support of it. Plimer is now suing a disreputable promoter of the Durupinar site (for Noah's Ark) on the basis of plagiarism. Funny, that's just what another raving anti-creationist documents Plimer doing in his latest book, along with a host of spelling errors, logical fallacies, and scientific mistakes (all distinct from the completely different list of the same kinds of mistakes documented by CSF).
18. Is creationist scientist Dr. Jerry Bergman a racist neo-Nazi?
From CRSnet recently:
>Hi Dan and everybody else! Try as I may I cannot find the beginning
of this thread! The reason it interests me is that I am having an
>extremely
distressing discussion with some talk.origins folk after I posted the URL
pointing to Jerry Bergman's article on Censorship of Creationist Material.
>Someone
posted back that Jerry Bergman was a neo-nazi and a racist. I was totally
shocked that someone could make such a boldly specific
>claim and
requested further info. (I did not believe for a moment that it was true!). I
then demanded a retraction. I did this because
>I really felt that such
libellous accusations could not and should not go unchallenged. Some other
article was cited in the t.o archives by
>Jim Lippard, who said it was a
summary of a paper by Tom M[DELETED].
>Here's a snippet:
>Me:
>> Lenny, I didn't see your
original post. However, why should I give
>> any credence to Jim
Lippard's paper? Why should I give any credence
>> to anything in the t.o. archives?
>Lenny F[DELETED]:
>>Don't.
Write to Bergman and ask him why he sends letters to the
>>National
Association for the Advancement of White People decrying
>>"reverse
racism".
>And so it goes on. I have given an example of an
anti-racist anti-nazi article published in Destiny Mag, Dec 94....no reply to
>that.
Thanks to Doug S[DELETED] for supplying me with that info, ....
Sometimes the sheer audacity of the lies by evolutionists is breathtaking. This example is a case in point.
Creationists (and non-creationists too, for that matter) have pointed out many times over the years that modern racism relies on evolutionary thinking for justification, and that the Nazi ideology of an Aryan Master Race comes directly out of an evolutionary mindset. This is pretty straighforward and I won't argue it further here, but naturally the more extreme evolutionary types don't like having these sorts of things pointed out. Among creationists, many of the best and most well-researched articles documenting and exposing evolutionary racism and Nazi-evolution connections have been written by...
Jerry Bergman.
This claim about Dr. Bergman completely turns reality on its' head. Since when does fighting racism make you a racist? If you look at the words, that is exactly what Dr. Bergman was accused of by Mr. Flank. While some may try to justify it as "OK" for one reason or another, employment of racial quotas and other tactics boils down to simply that: racism against whites. The rule "two wrongs do not make a right" has apparently been forgotten.
As this poster mentioned, Dr. Bergman has also written for Destiny, which is a superb magazine operated by and for black Americans! And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his exposing the lies and hypocrisy of evolutionists. Here is a list of a few other articles he has authored fighting racism and fascism (with thanks to CRSnet participants for some of these):
Bergman, Jerry, "A Brief History of the Eugenics Movement"
CEN Tech. J., vol. 5(2), 1991, pp. 143-153
ABSTRACT
Eugenics,
the science of improving the human race by scientific control of breeding, was
viewed by a large segment of scientists for almost one hundred years as an
important, if not a major means of producing paradise on earth. These scientists
concluded that many human traits were genetic, and that persons who came from
genetically 'good families' tended to turn out far better than those who came
from poor families. The next step was to encourage the good families to have
more children, and the poor families to have few or no children. From these
simple observations developed one of the mostfar-reaching movements, which
culminated in the loss of millions of lives. It discouraged aiding the sick,
building asylums for the insane, or even aiding the poor and all those who were
believed to be in some way 'genetically inferior', which included persons
afflicted with an extremely wide variety of unrelated physical and even
psychological maladies. Their end goal was to save society from the
'evolutionary inferior'. The means was sexual sterilization, permanent custody
of 'defective' adults by the state, marriage restrictions, and even the
elimination of the unfit through means which ranged from refusal to help them to
outright killing. This movement probably had a greater adverse influence upon
society than virtually any other that developed from a scientific theory in
modern times. It culminated with the infamous Holocaust and afterward rapidly
declined.
Bergman, Jerry, "Eugenics and the Development of Nazi Race Policy,"
PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE & CHRISTIAN FAITH Vol 44, no. 2, June 1992.
ABSTRACT
A
central government policy of the Hitler administration was the breeding of a "superior
race." This required, at the very least, preventing the "inferior
races" from mixing with "superior" ones in order to reduce
contamination of the latter's gene pool. The "superior race" belief is
based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major
presumption and requirement of Darwin's original "survival of the fittest"
theory. A review of the writings of Hitler and contemporary German biologists
finds that Darwin's theory and writings had a major influence upon Nazi
policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by
selective breeding, using the same techniques that farmers used to breed a
superior strain of cattle. In the formulation of his racial policies, he relied
heavily upon the Darwinian evolution model, especially the elaborations by
Spencer and Haeckel. They culminated in the "final solution," the
extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people
who belonged to what German scientists judged were "inferior races."
Bergman, Jerry "Evolution and the Development of Nazi Race Policy,"
Contrast (Bible Science Newsletter insert), Nov-Dec 1988, vol 7., No. 6.
Links
Hitler's interpretation of "the survival of the fittest" doctrine to
the Nazi holocaust.
Bergman, Jerry, "Evolution and the Origins of the Biological Race
Theory,"
Creation Ex
Nihilo Technical Journal 7(2):162-168.
ABSTRACT
Scientists have
almost universally concluded that the human races are largely equal in regard
to innate intelligence and most other traits. In spite of the wide social
disparities between the races in the West, no more than approximately one
standard deviation difference in mean intelligence exists between the whites and
blacks. This fact is contrary to a basic requirement of naturalistic evolution:
in order for selection to take place, differences must exist between individual
organisms for selection to select from. For selection to work something first
must cause races to develop, a process which in Darwinian terms is called
speciation. As evolution progresses, the contrast between groups must become
greater, producing development of new definable divisions. The lack of major
differences between races, especially -in intelligence, the factor most crucial
for the major contrast between Homo sapiens and 'lower' forms of life, creates
a major difficulty for current evolution theory. In addition, misuse of the
theory of evolution was an important factor in the extreme forms of racism,
especially that against blacks and Jews, that flourished at the turn of the
century and for many years beyond.
Bergman, Jerry "Evolution, Race, and Equality of Intelligence,"
Creation Research Society Quarterly, Sept. 1980, 17:127-134.
Emphasizes lack
of important differences among "races," and points the finger at
evolution for the cause behind prejudices against blacks and Jews at the turn of
the 20th cent.
Bergman, Jerry, "Ota Benga: The man who was put on display in the
zoo!,"
Creation
Ex Nihilo 16(1):48-50.
"What would you do if you went to the zoo
and saw a black African on display in a cage? It happened this century! Read
about this tragic case of evolutionary racism at its worst."
Bergman, Jerry, "NINETEENTH CENTURY DARWINISM AND THE TASMANIAN
GENOCIDE," Creation Research Society Quarterly, (Vol.??) Received 19
September 1994; Revised 29 April 1995
Abstract
It was widely believed in
the nineteenth century that the Tasmanians were a living link between modern
humans and their primate ancestors. Given the presupposition of naturalistic
evolution, the Tasmanian people were often seen as less than human and,
consequently, many people felt that it was not wrong or immoral to treat them
like animals. This attitude eventually influenced behavior which resulted in
the total extermination of the native Tasmanians. Today it is concluded that
they were a distinct racial group similar to the Australian Aborigines that
possessed a unique culture and were fully human. This event is only one of many
examples of the numerous tragedies that evolutionary naturalism has produced in
modern times.
Bergman, Jerry, "The Teaching of Hate: The Influence of Biological Evolution on Modern Literature," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 6(2):185-193.
I've met Dr. Bergman and find him to be a quiet, humble servant of Christ, and as erudite as anyone I've ever met. That evolutionists are reduced to such scurrilous lies in fighting science tells me something about the bankruptcy of their religion.
J.W. adds (by permission):
I talked with Jerry Bergman on the phone over the weekend. Fact of the
matter is that Jerry NEVER gave money to any racist group. He DID write letters
to racist groups in order to solicit their basis for their racism. This was part
of his research on evolution and racism. One of his letters WAS published in a
racist publication. But then again, some of his letters have been published in
atheistic publications as well.
Finally, Jerry said that he has heard
similar insinuations for some ten years now, and remarked that, if that is the
best the anti-Creationists can do against him, they really have nothing to stand
on!
17. High school student Danny Phillips objected to a NOVA program that presented evolutionary speculation as fact. Capturing the attention of the media, CBS gives us another example of liberal bias and dishonesty. Little better is the snide and utterly hypocritical tax-dollar leaching control-freak Eugenie Scott, who equates objections to evolutionary dogmatics to a refusal to study science itself. Dr. Scott, Danny wasn't trying to control what "80,000" other students think or see. But as far as I can tell, isn't that just what you've made your mission in life?
16. The following is from the latest
ICR Back to Genesis article.
Josh Cuozzo is an anthropology student who has taken the lead in starting a
creationist campus group at Pennsylvania State. He notes:
"I have
received ridicule from professors, students, and even a death threat.
This has not stopped us, and we press on to give students a better view of
science that could change their lives forever." (Emphasis mine)
(2/4/97)
15. Ken Ham, in a January 1997 Answers in Genesis newsletter article, provides more examples of extreme media bias and bigotry. If some in the media will publish hogwash claiming that Answers in Genesis wants to build a "Freemen" style compound in Kentucky (and hole up in an FBI standoff, we presume), then there is no lie to wild for them, no limit to the wicked (not to mention absurd) tactics they will use...
14. Plimer yet again (see #8 & 13 below). See the response to more of his wild "creationists-are-wrong-about-everything-they-say-and-do" accusations, this time towards Dr. Andrew Snelling (Ph.D., geology) and his work with uranium isotopes and "dating" methodology.
13. Dr. Ian
Plimer is an astonishing person (see item #8 below). Those who know me and
are familiar with the wild, inaccurate scientific and personal attacks of
anti-creationists (who are yet held to be darlings in the media) know how
contemptuous I am of their know-nothing anti-science intellectual state. But
Plimer (who has a Ph.D. in geology and was voted a "Humanist of the Year")
now is making the rest of them look like geniuses by comparison. When he's not
ranting to the Australian press about how Answers in Genesis wants to build a "Freemen-style
compound" in Kentucky (conjuring visions of a violent standoff between the
FBI and Ken Ham???), or waving live electrical cords around in a supposedly
intellectual debate with Dr. Duane Gish, he's making a mockery of science and
the history thereof. See this
partial list of
rebuttals and corrections to claims in his book, Telling Lies for God:
"It
should also be noted that many Australian sceptics, academics, and sadly, clergy
have reviewed "Lies" favourably. The fact that they overlooked the
many demonstrable clangers in the book means that the Australian anti-creation
lobby is incompetent in science, mathematics, biblical exegesis and logic. The
only alternative is that they think that attacking creationism justifies any
means, no matter how inaccurate or scurrilous."
12. Is the classic film Inherit the Wind great dramatic entertainment - or dishonest evolutionary propaganda? Dr. David Menton, anatomist at Washington University, compares actual trial transcripts with the script and screenplay of this famous movie about the Scopes "Monkey" Trial. He shows in the linked article how Hollywood systematically distorted its portrayal of the event, making an anti-Christian, anti-creationist and anti-science parody of history.
11. The next time someone closes their mind and tries to dismiss Christians
by referring to some sort of scandal, you might remind them of the disappearance
of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, anti-creationist and the leading American atheist.
That is, until she disappeared taking $600,000 from one of her American atheist
organizations. Where have the media headlines been??
This is the woman who
tried to defect to the U.S.S.R. a generation ago, then went to court and
succeeded in banning prayer in schools. The son over whom the court battle was
fought is now a young-earth creationist and evangelical pastor. Needless to
say, mom hasn't called lately...
10. The following is from Dr. Robert Herrmann, nominee for the 1997
Templeton Prize (the largest annually awarded cash prize in the world, including
the Nobel and Pulitzer prizes) for his work in mathematics, logic, philosophy
and cosmogony.
2. The paper in question is a Nov. 1995 version (1) of
the "U-cosmology"
paper. The longer and better version and the
only one I wanted on
the
Internet is found at Douglas Sharp's "revev" site. This
Nov. 1995 version
(1) was sent to James Sutton along with a private e-mail
which also
appears at the end of this version (1). The site where these
appear is the
anti-creation site "Creation v. Evolution Controversy"
http://keg.zymurgy.org/~legion/"
at the "/sutton.htm" location.
3. It goes without saying, that
the individual who controls this site had
to write a very brief critique
about this paper and e-mail and that this,
of course, appears PRIOR to the
actual material. The critique is designed
to influence the readers mind
before they read the material presented. The
critique shows that this
individual has no knowledge of the material
presented and also has no
knowledge as to theological matters.
I give one quote from this critique. "He
[referring to me] goes on and blames Jesus
for his failings." Of
course, this is the exact opposite of what I state
at the end of the
originally private e-mail.
The anti-creationist site mentioned appears
to be a good example of the kind of emotionalism that seems to commonly afflict
anti-creationists. Sarcastically, he writes, "The following is a list of
organizations relating to education. You can tell them that it is better to
teach bogus claims like the speed of light is decaying, snakes can talk, etc.
then to teach facts!" I see nothing useful at this site.
(10a.) Some
of the shoddier claims of heterodox "creationists" like Ron Wyatt (See
this
expose from AIG
for info on Wyatt. Here is another
detailed expose from CIM.) are referenced.
As for Herrmann's work, the site
author, as he mentioned, just doesn't have the necessary intellectual tools or
background to understand it. He only appears to be interested in
misrepresenting creationists, and like anti-creationists everywhere is fixated
on the same handful of topics (Wyatt's ark site, the speed of light decay
hypothesis, incompetent discussions of entropy, and ditto for terrestrial
magnetic field decay).
As an aside, regarding the four topics mentioned
above, (1) the ark claim is bogus, (2) the light speed data is (to me)
ambiguous, personally I disagree with the hypothesis but anti-creationists who
dogmatically claim no evidence or possibility for light speed decay are
close-minded and defend their position out of religious fanaticism, not reason,
(3) entropy in the context of open systems is an exceptionally powerful argument
against evolutionism and will remain so no matter how much anti-creationists
howl, and (4) the young-earth model for the decay of planetary magnetic fields
works; the old-earth models don't. 'nuf said.
9. Shame on the censors in the public library system. My experience
has been that the only way to get creationist material into a library has been
to donate it myself. And even then, they misbin books.
For example, I
donated a copy of Duane Gish's Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics
to the Southfield Public Library. It was binned into the "religion and
philosophy" section. It contains no religion or philosophy! The content
is solely scientific, and even if they don't like the conclusion or content the
subject matter is inescapably, and unmistakably, that of science. Why not put
it with all the anti-creationist books they had on the shelves, where it was
more appropriate?
Groups like "People for the American Way" (sic)
moan and groan about "censorship" whenever someone protests a
pointlessly disgusting or pornographic work on the shelves, bought with taxpayer
money. They document several hundred (horrors!) cases a year. But they stick
their heads in the sand and tacitly support the censorship of literally millions
of volumes from library shelves by Christians, conservatives, and anyone else
who is "politically incorrect." This is mass censorship (as well as
economic warfare, since they shunt tens of millions of dollars each year towards
leftist publishers) by the humanist Left. As a youth I loved the library system
(when I was six I vowed to read every book in the library); now I wonder if a
couple old teammates of mine, criminals who vandalized and burned the school
library after we graduated, didn't do more good than harm!
J.W. on CRSnet
put it this way:
I have had some successes in secular colleges buying
[his books]. But only a trickle. I need not remind you that the left-wingers
control academia, and practice censorship while decrying it. Just today a
secular university refused to buy my Noah book despite a professor
requesting it. I talked to the librarian. She gave me the spiel about money
being tight. So I asked her how come they can afford to buy mountains of
feminist books, but not a single book which represents a pro-Biblical viewpoint.
Her answer to me: "I do not wish to get in an argument."
It
is rather comic, almost, in the way libraries will load up on anti-creationist
books trying to tear down the creation model, while not allowing patrons to see
the creationist side themselves. Is it "religious neutrality" to only
allow anti-Christian and anti-Bible material in the library, but nothing on the
other side because it is (necessarily) "religious"??
8. Shame on Ian
Plimer, the Australian humanist who appears to have no scruples in his
pathetic witch-hunts against creationists. This is the man who, according to
anti-creationist historian Ronald Numbers in his prominent work The
Creationists, pulled out lived electrical wires in a debate with Duane Gish
and challenged him to electrocute himself on them! Anti-creationist Jim Lippard
has also disapprovingly detailed some of Plimers outrages. Unfortunately many
in the media eagerly repeat Plimers' charges no matter how outrageous (but then,
what's new?)
As mentioned in the report linked to above, Plimer has (1) made
a variety of patently false accusations about the Creation Science Foundation in
Australia which have been proven unfounded, (2) falsely claimed to have been
sued on numerous occasions by creationist individuals and organizations
(personally I wish this was true!), (3) tried to paint the perpetrators of the
Durupinar "Ark" fraud as creationists (It was creationists who
exposed
this site), (4) tried to link creationists to militant anarchists like the
Freemen in Montana and make it sound like the planned Creation Museum (see
below) was causing deep divisions in Kentucky (it's only the fanatic humanists
who can't stand the threat it represents and have to tyrannize everyone else to
maintain their power.) And so on.
In the latter case, Plimer shamefully lied
to the media, claiming to be a Christian (as if this somehow justifies demands
to deny Answers in Genesis the right to build a museum with their own - not
taxpayer - money). Considering Plimer was voted Humanist of the Year in 1995
(like LaRue below, vicious anti-Christian liars seem to be the most popular
among Humanists), and denies the Bible is God's inerrant Word, this is pretty
unlikely! The membership application to his Humanist Society bluntly states
that humanists seek to "create a society in which a person may reach their
full potential free from supernatural beliefs" (emphasis in
original). Does "full potential" include a trail of lies,
misinformation and slander??
7. 11/18/96 I think this says it all (emphasis mine):
>
It seems as if the evolutionist will do anything in order to start
>something.
Don't
feel bad Karl. A couple of days ago I was sent a bomb threat via an
anonymous remailer. There is a world full of wackos out there.
Jerry
(CRSnet
communication, 11/96)
6. Shame on the humanists
opposing Genesis Park. Ever since Answers in Genesis went public with
their plan to buy land and begin construction of a world-class Christian natural
history museum, anti-creationists have been coming out of the woodwork. The
zoning meetings for the proposed site have been turned into a real battleground.
Humanists
have been driving from all over Kentucky and Ohio to the county meetings
(where they have no legitimate business if they don't live there), using them as
a bully pulpit to spew hatred on Christianity and creation science. This
includes, of course, the usual gaggle of humanist pastors walking arm-in-arm
with spiteful atheists to promote their brand of "Christianity."
Ken Ham (president of AIG) has been compared to Jim Jones, the cultist who
murdered his followers in South America some years ago (AIG newsletter, Sept.
1996). A neighbor of the proposed site told the press he would place satanic
symbols all over his yard to harass Christians if the museum is built (AIG
November 1996 letter). The zoning committee has been told if they allow
construction it will lead to the destruction of the nation. They have been told
it is a violation of the leftist myth "separation of church and state"
if they allow construction. No taxpayers funds are involved, so how can this be
unless the opposition means "religious" activity and expression should
be annihilated entirely and all church buildings within the U.S. destroyed?
All
the ranting at the meetings has been beneficial for creationists. It has
exposed the evolutionists for the religious fanatics many of them are; alienated
the public, and given tremendous media attention to the project. Since the
humanists did such a poor job of dreaming up legitimate objections to
the project (things like sewage concerns, or pollutants, etc.) the final board
vote was 9-4 in favor of the necessary rezoning, pending final fiscal court
approval November 25. (Please pray that the fiscal court is not corrupted or
intimidated into dreaming up some sort of denial.)
The latest tactic in the
smear campaign has been to pass around a dishonest petition attempting to stir
up local support against the project. It falsely claims AIG handles 45,000 mail
order shipments a month from it's offices, implying that it is a commercial
business that would create heavy commerical traffic. Actually, the 45,000
refers to the newsletters, which are mailed not from AIG but from a fulfillment
company in another city. As they testified in previous hearings, AIG handles
about 45-50 mail order shipments a day, which are dropped off at the post office
by an employee. (AIG "Behind the Scenes," October 1996)
UPDATE: The fiscal court has bowed to the hatemongering, ignored the recommendations given to it by the zoning committee and others, and denied AIG the permission it needs. I haven't heard their reasoning (?) yet. More information, no doubt, to follow.
5. Shame on Dr. Gerald LaRue and George
Jammal for lying and perpetuating fraudulent claims about Noah's Ark
(as well as much of the national media, see below, for turning the story
on its head). Professor LaRue was elected 1989 "Humanist of the Year"
and is a retired professor of Biblical history and archeology from the Univ. of
Southern California, a taxpayer-supported position from which he attacked and
persecuted Christian students for their beliefs.
He concocted a plot in 1985
carried out by Jammal, in which Jammal claimed to have seen Noah's Ark and
recovered wood from it on Mt. Ararat. When contacted repeatedly by ICR
geologist Dr. John Morris with the intent of C-14 dating the wood, Jammal
explained he had misplaced it. This was the same wood he shed crocodile tears
over on network television in 1993, claiming it was his last link to his friend,
who supposedly died at the site of the Ark!
Morris interviewed Jammal but
found his story of little use and shared it only with other fellow Ark
researchers. It seemed LaRue's plot had failed. However, in 1992 Sun Pictures
approached Dr. Morris, requesting the names of people who claimed to have seen
the Ark for a documentary they were filming. Jammal's name was dutifully given.
Of course, Jammal and LaRue jumped at the chance to lie on nationwide
television, and his false story (including the infamous "missing"
block of wood) was included and shown on CBS in late February, 1993.
After
the showing LaRue, chairman of the anti-Christian "Committee for the
Scientific Examination of Religion," went to the press claiming that
Jammal's story was a hoax he had perpetrated himself in 1992 to gain revenge on
Sun Pictures for a former slight. Instead of LaRue being cast down as a liar
and deceitful fraud the mainstream media did some classic spin-doctoring.
Articles in Time (July 5, 1993) and other sources made it look
like creationists were the perpetrators of the fraud rather than the victims! A
story on the popular TV show "Inside Edition" blamed Dr.
Morris for putting Sun Pictures in touch with Jammal in the first place, despite
the fact that Morris was the intended victim and that Sun had simply asked for
the names of anyone who would talk.
Dr. John Morris stated, "Don't hold
your breath for a Time magazine or Associated Press retraction. If it
happens [so far as I know it didn't] it will be buried on an obscure page.
Don't look for LaRue's fellow humanists to insist on a higher standard of
integrity." (Acts & Facts, Volume 22, #9, September 1993, p. 4)
But
that's not the end of the story! Morris's response to critics in the
September Acts & Facts was crippled by more lies from Jammal and
LaRue! LaRue was claiming to the press that he had hatched the hoax with
Jammal in 1992, but Dr. Morris knew perfectly well that he had interviewed
Jammal, not in 1992 but in 1986. Morris had reported the 1986 interview (at
which a transcript was recorded) to Time before they published their
anti-creationist propaganda. Thus when Morris contacted Jammal, and Jammal lied
and failed to retract his story, Morris erroneously concluded that LaRue had
invented the story of a hoax and didn't even know Jammal. Not until the
January, 1994 edition of Acts & Facts (Volume 23, #1) did Morris
sheepishly uncover the full story and expose all of LaRue's and Jammal's lies:
(p. 2-3)
"Since then, Jammal has admitted lying, both to me in 1986
and to Sun Pictures in 1992, then later with the knowledge of LaRue...
His
story differed remarkably from those of all other eyewitnesses.... I never
published his account in my books and articles, and only once, in July 1986,
discussion with other Ark researchers, did I recite it...
Now, in hindsight,
I can see that this story was a hoax from the start. In his 1985 letter, three
foreign names were given.... I now see that in these names he had coded certain
vulgarities...
After I saw the special, I called Jammal and asked for
permission to carbon-date the wood, but this was refused. Jammal claimed he had
signed a contract with a Canadian exploration/movie concern, which now had
exclusive rights to the story.
In some humanist and evolutionary circles,
Dr. LaRue is a hero for having put one over on the Christians. But to others, a
liar is a liar. In scientific and scholarly circles, the most severe criticism
is reserved for those who fraudulently produce and report data. If nothing
else, this event shows the depth to which some people will stoop to try to
discredit those who believe the Bible."
4. Shame on progressive creationist/Rossite Samuel R. Conner for
attacking Dr. D. Russell Humphreys behind his back. Rossites have vigorously
denounced and attacked his Bible-based white hole cosmology since it destroys
the whole raison d'etre of their ministry. To date only one small error
has been identified, which has been of no consequence to the model as a whole.
The rest of their criticisms have been based on misunderstanding of white hole
cosmology and the science involved. Humphreys writes (CRSnet communication,
10/96):
"I need your help concerning one of the critics of my book
*Starlight and Time*, a theistic evolutionist devotee of Hugh Ross named Samuel
R. Conner. Following an open debate between me and Mr. Conner in the September
1995 Bible-Science News, I heard nothing more from the Ross camp. Now I have
found out that Conner has been sending numerous letters criticizing me to
various creationist leaders all year long.
I have seen a sample of one of
the more recent letters. It seeks to put me and my theory in as bad a light as
possible by a combination of half-truths, lies by omission, and spin-doctoring.
Conner tries to make the recipient feel that Conner is on the creationist side,
partly by pious phrases such as "Greetings in the Lord Jesus Christ,"
and partly by expressing concern for damage to the gospel, the creationist
cause, etc. Ross uses the same techniques.
Conner didn't bother to send
me copies of any of those letters. It looks as if he is trying to accomplish
by covert operations what he failed to accomplish by open debate --- suppression
of a theory which threatens Ross's position and income. I suppose I should be
flattered; ..."
I was able to obtain a copy of an attack written by
Conner against White Hole Cosmology from Hugh Ross's "Reasons to Believe"
[sic] organization after the confrontation in Bible-Science News
exposed Conner's errors. The paper by Conner from RTB was written months before
the BSN articles. RTB gave no indication that they knew it contained
inaccuracies.
Dr. Humphreys requests that anyone with knowledge of Ross's
campaign against him and the White Hole Cosmology please forward the information
to him. If you send it to me, I can forward the information to him.
3. Shame on Dr. Niles Eldredge, for the many demonstrably dishonest and false statements (quite apart from those which are debatable or merely due to differing interpretations) made in his book, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism. For example, see "Do Creationists Publish in Refereed Science Journals" off the main creation science page for an example of one patently false assertion he made. (Combine w. #3 below, later.)
2. Shame on those who continue to promote the
gill slit fraud.
This includes Library of Science in a recent Selection of the Month
promotion, Dr. Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History
in his book The Fossil Trail, and even Dr. Carl Sagan (promoting
the related and equally defunct old wives tale of embryological recapitulation,
see quotes
#8-10 of this file) in a Parade magazine article last year.
Sometimes
it seems like half the anti-creationists out there are claiming creationists are
beating a dead horse by denouncing the evolutionist gill slit fraud, while the
other half are heavily promoting it!
1. Shame on the two infiltrators of CRSnet, the mail list of the
Creation Research Society. Members of the mail list are required to agree with
the doctrines of the Creation Research Society to participate. This is
important since many members on the list have been persecuted for their
scientific/religious beliefs and teaching, especially in America, and need a
secure atmosphere for discussion.
Twice in the last year evolutionists have
blatantly lied in order to infiltrate the list. The most recent case
involved a freelance writer for a national magazine. While we welcome the
attention, premature publication of science theories before completion of peer
review, or inept descriptions of the same, are NOT what we want as good
scientists and citizens. Nor do we need sensationalizing distortions.
Update
(10/28/96): The latter infiltrator is named Jack Hitt. He recently
had an article published, partly based on his experience with CRSnet, in the
November issue of Harpers magazine. As the CRSnet moderator put it, "Some
may wonder how Mr. Hitt came to be a part of CRSnet. Suffice it to say that he
was less than completely forthright in the representation of his beliefs. After
his "cover" was blown, he did not respond to my query as to his real
position on matters of origins."
Comic Relief
(Just plain dumb stuff, and minor stuff where an
honest mistake may have occurred.)
1. Shame on the intellectual giants who dreamed up a scheme (back in 1994-5) to bankrupt the creationist ministry Answers in Genesis by filling their postage-paid return envelopes with items ranging from rocks to human feces. Suffice to say the scheme failed, and the post office wasn't too thrilled either.
2. Shame on G.M.G. (I'll post his full name, address and phone
number if he pulls this again), a twenty-something evolutionist from Bowling
Green, KY, who dreamed up a plot to intimidate creationists. He faxed messages
to creationists across North America anonymously, saying "APES EVOLVED FROM
YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS!!" Ooh, scary.
Apparently the concept of
Caller I.D. escaped this young man. Since faxes commonly print the source phone
number on the fax, it was an easy matter to track the culprit down. One
recipient of the insult called a friend who used to do collection work, who
replied:
"Please tell all those who were fax-bombed to keep the
copies of the fax. If it happens again, then each one should send a complaint
to the Bowling Green police and the phone company. However, the message I left
for George [the sender] should put a stop to the nonsense."
3. (11/11/96) Shame on those who misquote or quote creationists out of context. For example, one recent misquote relayed to me claimed Morris stated on p. 70 of Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science that Flood geology didn't need to be tested. It also claimed that creationism didn't lead to predictions or retrodictions, according to creationists. Page 70 deals with U/Pb radiometric dating, nor is such thinking on pages 69-71. For several examples of confirmed creationist predictions based on the creation model, see Impact #242. (Revised 11/15/96)
Return
to Creation Science