Dan,

There's one more line in your last post to me that deserves more attention...

<<...you recently advised us that Creationism relies entirely on dishonesty.>>

Really?

I had advised everyone? You say this as if no one else knew about it. Or, as if it is merely a claim that I have conjured up out of thin air.

Would you like me to start pointing out the dishonesty of Creationism using references to www.creationontheweb.com? I've found more than enough to keep myself busy posting for many weeks!

You even (inadvertently) point it our yourself. Your last quote from that site was blatantly dishonest and I irrefutably demonstrated why.

So how can you possibly act like the dishonesty doesn't exist?

Since you need me to (yet again) point-out the dishonesty of Creationism, how about we start from the beginning?

Sir Richard Owen.

Owen was both Darwin’s superior and fiercest adversary. He believed in 'common archetypes' rather than a 'common ancestor'. Ironically, his conduct was an 'archetype' of the modern Creation "scientists", only these days, they submit to peer review rarely – if ever.

Owen was a Creation “scientist”, both in the sense that he preferred magical explanations over material evidence, and because he deliberately misrepresented evidence in an attempt to mislead others into believing as he did.

Owen tried to find some physical trait to distinguish humans from apes. He presented similarities as differences, and when he couldn’t find any legitimate differences, he made up entirely fictitious ones.

Owen's dishonesty was rife throughout his work. He was credited with the establishment of the British Museum of Natural History, and of inventing the word, “dinosaur”, but he did so by suppressing the work of other scientists and taking credit for their discoveries himself.

Just like today's Creationists, he had a reputation of never admitting his own mistakes, and he was often described as "dishonest". And just like Creationists today, he believed religion should override scientific research.

Continued...

...Continued

So, Dan, it's rather silly of you to pretend that I'm just inventing the concept of Creationist dishonesty, when it's been around for 150 years!

Quote mining (as you have helped me demonstrate a couple of times before) is the most obvious form of Creationist dishonesty.

Then there's the Creationist tactic of exploiting fear.

For a site that tries to be scientific, www.creationontheweb.com contains a lot of this.

Stalin’s ape-man Superwarriors (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5198/)

Oooo... this one sounds scary!

Actually, this article made me sick to the stomach! That's the effect it tries have on it's readers so they feel repulsed by the very thought of evolution. But I felt sick because it was an appalling way for so-called Christians to be conducting themselves; trying to manipulate people to reject a scientific theory.

Their logic is astoundingly poor! They talk about Stalin's desire to breed ape-like soldiers (apparently because Stalin accepted evolution) then they come to the illogical conclusion that because Stalin was an evil man, evolution is therefore a bad thing, and that this somehow means it's false.

The author (Russell Grigg) even demonstrates that he knows nothing about evolution...

“If evolution were true, humans and apes would be closely related. So the idea that they could interbreed would not have seemed outlandish.”

Evolution wouldn't allow this.

Either these people have very low IQ's, or they're rotten to the core – Just like Owen apparently was.

There are hundreds of examples of this kind of this disgusting and dishonest behaviour. Simply do a Google 'site search' of www.creationontheweb.com for “Stalin”... http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Acreationontheweb.com+stalin&btnG=Search&meta=.

Or “Hitler”... http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Acreationontheweb.com+hitler&btnG=Search&meta=. Even though what Hitler was doing was “Selective Breeding” – not “Natural Selection”.

There are many more examples of Creationist dishonesty. I can keep posting them if you'd like, Dan? You evidently need to have things spelled-out to you quite clearly and repeatedly.

How about the their articles on the Archaeopteryx? (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Acreationontheweb.com+archaeopteryx&btnG=Search&meta=)

Try searching these pages for key words like “bill”, “nasal/nostril”, “teeth”, etc... They don't appear. Funny how they can claim this transitional species is just a bird without even mentioning much of the evidence!

HarryG,
When I made that throw away line about the ABC, I had no idea you were an employee. In the context of what you said about children being imbued with certain doctrine, I was making inference about educational and cultural ‘indoctrination’ within our society, the ABC being one good example of this. Now without restriction to word limit, I’ll flesh out what I was saying.

You say most of those who believe in creationism do so because they’ve had it instilled into them from an early age. Can I then ask, why do people believe in evolution? You admitted that the concepts of evolution can be difficult to understand.

Now because the concepts are little hard to understand, but society says it is necessary that the kiddies get it right and believe what they’re supposed to, our educational institutions, the media, etc. help them out with colourful TV documentaries, imaginative pictures of supposed half-monkey men, etc. all reinforcing the idea that the world sprung into existence by itself millions of years ago.

Even the church here is at fault, when it teaches the Noah story to kids with images of a leaky tub of animals with giraffes’ necks poking out the top, reinforcing the impression to people like Relda, George and Waterboy that the account must be mythical, forgetting that the Biblical dimensions of the ark were about the size of the National Gallery in Melbourne.

“You have to be a paedophile to become a priest.” “You can’t be a Christian and get a job at the ABC.” Both of these are deliberate exaggerations. Obviously exceptions exist. I have met employees of the ABC that were Christians. I’ve never met a paedophile priest. But the ABC’s reputation is deserved for its strange interpretation of the words ‘bias’ and ‘balance’ within its charter.

Here’s a tip for ABC news and current affaires, when reporting on controversial issues, try and fairly put both sides of the story.

As an ABC employee, can you point me to one program reporting on creationism that you can unashamedly say was balanced and fair?

Dan:
It's a long time since I worked at the ABC, and I neither have my ABC Weeklies or TV Times to check out when the ABC showed something which met your idea of "balance". However, I do watch Compass mostly (which seems to cover most issues over time) and the 702 Sunday night radio is deeply religious. It seems to me that neither agnostics or atheists ever are on air. But it is a silly challenge to issue, and probably even sillier to respond more than I have.
I am not sure if you misquote me, or perhaps I was not particular enough, but certainly, in my experience, it appears that those who are creationists have that belief or attitude because it was the attitude that surrounded them in their formative years; but also, some people switch to a god, and accept all the tenets that that entails, after they have had some kind of difficult, emotional experience and they seek solace and support in a god. I was asking you if you could explain why you believe in creationism to expand my understanding.
I know that the media can get it wrong, particularly when there is no intrinsic reason why they should get it right where they are driven by profit or the personal opinion of their majority owner. But I think what you are seeing are demonstrations of how the world and its creatures have evolved as seen by scientists, backed up by scientific evidence and some hypotheses built around that evidence as the whole story is being discovered. This is not bias, any more than a demonstration of the facts and the hypotheses surrounding the development of the atomic table would have been at the time of its development.
ctd...

ctd from previous ...
Dan, there is a right and a wrong in all this, and the creationists are currently on the losing side (going by weight of numbers(there is more debate there, I am guessing with a smile)), but keep your battle going and try to avoid rationalising.
Just imagine what side you would have been on when Copernicus was making his outrageous statements, or Newton, or goodness know how many others (I am sure there is something on the ABC to demonstrate this)
And what would a "balanced and fair" report on creationism look like? Would it discuss evolution? Would it have pictures of fossils, and what neanderthal man or a dinosaur might have looked like? Or would that make it biased?

Sancho,

I can relate to that.

I used to be a Creationist myself... Until I reached the age of reason.

Dan,

<<Can I then ask, why do people believe in (sic) evolution?>>

Because the evidence for evolution is plentiful, irrefutable and nothing contradicts it. Every claim that Creationists have ever made has been debunked immediately and repeatedly. The Dover trial even disproved Creationism in a court of law.

<<[HarryG] admitted that the concepts of evolution can be difficult to understand.>>

Any science is difficult to understand until you learn about it. You're living proof of this.

Evolution and natural selection are actually very simple concepts to understand when you sift through the confusion tactics and false propaganda Creationists put out there.

This is becoming a tiresome old tactic of yours, Dan. Taking something someone has said, and twisting it to support your position.

Very sneaky behaviour!

<<...but society says it is necessary that the kiddies get it right and believe what they’re supposed to...>>

What a completely idiotic thing to say about teaching a field of science, just because it threatens your personal religious beliefs!

Can you provide evidence for this conspiracy theory of your's?

<<...our educational institutions, the media, etc. help them out with colourful TV documentaries...>>

Such as?

Unlike religion, I can't remember ever having evolution shoved down my throat as a child. Nor do I ever remember seeing books or television shows with anything relating to evolution.

Could you please give me an example of what you're talking about?

<<... imaginative pictures of supposed half-monkey men...>>

You mean like the one's we've found fossils for?

<<...reinforcing the idea that the world sprung into existence by itself millions of years ago....>>

Who says the world “sprung into existence”? I don't know of any scientists who claim that. You're telling porkies again, Dan.

Not very becoming of you.

I like the word “reinforcing” though. You make it sound like there's a conspiracy out there to brainwash children, just so you can drag evolution down on par with religion.

This belief of yours is unmistakably, undeniably and demonstratably delusional.

Continued...