Can YEC sources be trusted?

[The Thinker]

No, they cannot be trusted. Period.

[oxmixmudd]

I've always considered the most blatantly obvious examples of YEC chicanery to be
(i) Davies' and Sarfati's omission of the words "is also solved" from a reference to a problem
(ii) Hovind using a paper written in 1975 to describe a fossil dug up in 1977
(iii) Citing only element residence times over 6000 years from Goldberg, and not those as low as 100 years, as evidence that the Earth is young.

These are all easily understood regardless of scientific background and are so straightforward that for anyone with even a shred of integrity, they should not only not continue to be used, they should never have happened at all.

Roy

The #1 you mention is the one that just completely floored me the first time I saw it. It concerns the issue of supernova remnants and is such a blatant misrepresentations of the quoted authors it hails back to the old 'snake oil' salesmen preying on the ignorance of the audience. Sarfati and others were still using that same quote decades after it had been pointed out to them how egregious the whole thing was. The leaders in the YEC world are no less than the 'snake oil' salesmen of old. At one time I thought they were just misguided or ignorant but sincere. At this point however, I would say there is little if any real chance that they have even an ounce of honesty left in them. My best guess is that whatever pangs of conscience remain are silenced by the need to keep the $$$ flowing from the ignorant masses whose ears they tickle, or perhaps they have convinced themselves the 'mission' of making sure the masses are not 'deceived' into doubting a literal interpretation of Genesis justifies the evidence twisting and distortion that is their bread and butter.

Jim

[klaus54]

No, they cannot be trusted. Period.

"They" being the professional YEC apologists.

Woe to them.

However, YEC laypeople are just scientifically and theologically naive, like the vast majority of humanity.

[Roy]

The #1 you mention is the one that just completely floored me the first time I saw it. It concerns the issue of supernova remnants and is such a blatant misrepresentations of the quoted authors it hails back to the old 'snake oil' salesmen preying on the ignorance of the audience. Sarfati and others were still using that same quote decades after it had been pointed out to them how egregious the whole thing was.

Sarfati is still using it today.

[Yttrium]

Sarfati is still using it today.

Wasn't he the guy who was posting frequently on the old tweb boards? If he was, I miss that guy, because he was much more fun than Jorge.

[rogue06]

Wasn't he the guy who was posting frequently on the old tweb boards? If he was, I miss that guy, because he was much more fun than Jorge.

Sarfati used to post as Socrates and earned himself a permaban for reasons I don't know (slightly before my time). When I read through his old posts a few years ago it seemed that he was every bit as caustic as Jorge but actually attempted (at least occasionally) to address questions.

[Jedidiah]

Sarfati used to post as Socrates and earned himself a permaban for reasons I don't know (slightly before my time). When I read through his old posts a few years ago it seemed that he was every bit as caustic as Jorge but actually attempted (at least occasionally) to address questions.

I got a kick our of Socrates. He was extreme, but not anywhere near as caustic as Jorge. The only time I recall him being caustic was when responding in kind.

[oxmixmudd]

I got a kick our of Socrates. He was extreme, but not anywhere near as caustic as Jorge. The only time I recall him being caustic was when responding in kind.

He was still around or had just left when I arrived. I can't remember whether I thought he was better or worse than Jorge in terms his TWEB persona, but I do remember he was more likely than Jorge to engage the science with some semblance of an explanation for his position. In general, one can get a pretty good feel for Sarfati by reading "Refuting Compromise" and then realizing that he took the time to write a book directed solely at condemning one man, Hugh Ross, painting him as a compromiser and a hypocrite because Ross holds to an OE/Progressive Creation model. Ross, OTOH, has taken the high road with Sarfati, refusing to return the favor, and simply focusing on his own attempts at an apologetics ministry with a strong focus on the redemptive message of the Gospel*.

(here is a recent response by Mr. Ross to those that would like him to engage Sarfati on Sarfati's level)

Again, I've yet to see leaders on the YEC side take the kind of high moral ground we see in Ross on much of anything. And to me that and the absolute emptiness of their arguments from a scientific perspective say all that needs to be said about whether I should trust them or their arguments, on any element of the debate.


Jim

*BTW, while I respect Ross immensely, we disagree as to the robustness of Evolution as a scientific theory and the correct way to interpret Genesis 1.

[rogue06]

A totally different kind of example illustrating the total lack of honesty and integrity of the leading YEC organizations can be seen below.

A few years back the leadership of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) cozied up with a group run by the Turkish Holocaust denying criminal Harun Yahya (real name Adnan Oktar and widely known for his use of blackmail, extortion and threats of violence against opposition, use of cocaine, and encouraging a theocratic revolution) to form conferences in opposition to evolution. ICR got interested in Harun Yahya's group when they started publishing anti-evolution tracts and immediately wanted to help.

When these connections were exposed by the Washington Post and others ICR did what any self-respecting group would do when caught red-handed. They lied through their teeth about the whole sordid affair. ICR went into full denial mode. When he was queried about past and present links with Yahya/Oktar, Bruce Wood, ICR's Public Information Officer, replied in part, "ICR has never cooperated with him... The primary reason for non-cooperative relationship is a distinctive in the beliefs of ICR and Mr. Oktar... We know of no such occurrence/relationship."

That is a provable falsehood.

ICR worked hand in glove with his "Bilim Arastirma Vakfi" (BAV - called the "Science Research Foundation" or SRF in English) on at least two occasions at creationist conferences in Turkey on April 4 and June 5, 1998^[1].

BAV's (a.k.a. SRF) website specifically noted ICR's contribution. Duane Gish, then Vice President of ICR, and David Menton, a member of ICR's Technical Advisory Board, made on-camera testimonials to BAV claiming to have aired their differences on religion (remember what Wood claimed^[2]). Gish even states he hopes for collaboration with BAV.

Their website quotes Gish as saying:

"We certainly urge our colleges in America to cooperate with the SRF, this marvelous Foundation, in anyway possible."

Dr. John Morris, ICR's President (and son of Henry Morris, the organization's founder and the Father of the modern creationist movement), gushed enthusiastically:

"Let me recommend these young men to you, without any reservation... The men of the Science and Research Foundation are very bright individuals who have the ability to have an impact in Turkey."

Here is a picture (sorry about the small size) of the speakers at one of the conferences (the second one) that they deny they attended along with a few characters from AnswersinGenesis (AiG) as well

BAV_conference_Fall_of_Darwinism_Istanbul_July1998_Girouard_Boudreaux_Fliermans_Menton_Gish_JDMo.jpg

From left to right: Ibrahim Tuncer (BAV), John Morris (ICR), Edward Boudreaux (AiG), Duane Gish (ICR), Altug Berker (BAV), Carl Fliermans (AiG), David Menton (ICR), Edip Keha and Michael Girouard.

Gish also spoke at the first one as well, and since the above image has Gish with his face buried in his hands, here's another picture from the conference

duane_gish_plate.jpg

After the irrefutable evidence that ICR (and AiG) surfaced one YEC apologist declared that they were they went there to try to bring the Muslims to Christ. But as John Morris made clear to the "Washington Post" they were there to assist their new allies oppose evolution, saying that

"Why I'm so interested in seeing creationism succeed in Turkey is that evolution is an evil concept that has done such damage to society."

That was their motivation not any attempt to evangelize. Although it is entirely possible they did try to turn them to Christ that would have been secondary. It was all about opposing evolution.

While it is one thing to hop into bed with a group of Muslim extremists led by a criminal Muslim holocaust denier interested in starting a theocratic revolution in Turkey, the evidence that they cannot be trusted to tell the truth is demonstrated by the fact that they tried to lie their way out of it when knowledge of their association became known outside of YEC circles












1. And BAV/SRF is right in the thick of Yahya's thuggish activities having been forced to pay fines to six professors that they harassed, threatened and slandered and are well known to use women to have sex with scholars and secretly video tape it and threaten to release the tapes if they didn't cooperate.

2. "The primary reason for non-cooperative relationship is a distinctive in the beliefs of ICR and Mr. Oktar"

[klaus54]

Amicus meus, inimicus inimici mei...