Skip to main content

Shining the Light on a Darwinist Deceiver

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is part 2 of Conspiracy Theories, Creation, and Reason, but takes a different approach. We saw how a number of factors contribute to the act of purveying conspiracy theories, and how there are several reasons why people believe them. Then there is the alleged creation science conspiracy.

Anti-creationist gadfly Paul Braterman wrote a hit piece on creationists. It was posted on the leftist Snopes site, who did not bother to fact check.
Credit: Unsplash / Steve Johnson
We have three articles to consider, two of which are from the same ministry. Naturally there will be some overlap, but they each offer material that comprise a larger picture.

There was a time when if someone had a question about, say, that 2002 email saying the teddy bear icon in Windows was really a virus. They could check Snopes and find out that it was a hoax, and they could search for urban legends. Unfortunately, they became heavily involved in promoting leftist political views with "fact checking", and their credibility became questionable. Snopes even attacked the parody site Babylon Bee (one of whose slogans is "fake news you can trust"). They are powerful unqualified amateurs, but pretend to be experts. 

Shouldn't fact checkers check facts on their own site, or just post something because they thought their readers would find it interesting? That is hypocritical. It happened when retired professor Paul Braterman wrote an anti-creationist hit piece that targeted several creationist organizations, emphasizing Answers in Genesis. Braterman is known for misleading rhetoric and getting his evolutionary mythology wrong (as seen in "Braterman ‘slam dunk’ flunk"), and being a gadfly. He hobnobs with professing Christians who also mount up and ride for the Darwin brand, such as the comments on this post.

It is interesting how some owlhoots are so quick to demonize biblical creationists that they do not conduct proper research. I was grouped in with Answers in Genesis by atheist Michael Zimmerman when he attacked Question Evolution Day with some very bizarre material. More recently, Phil Vischer attacked AiG. When he was shown to be disingenuous by Dr. Jason Lisle (see "False History of Creationism is Full of Beans"). Vischer then compounded his false statements, prompting follow-up articles by Lisle.

Why don't they just let us be (in their view) stupid and uninformed? In "Dr. Duane Gish and Debating Evolutionists", we saw how Darwin's disciples hammered Dr. Gish, who had a reputation for defeating his opponents in debates. Many of us see the diatribes against creationists by arrogant misotheists. Creation science really puts burrs under their saddles,

Ken Ham pointed out the hypocrisy of Snopes and some of the false statements of Braterman in his article. He referenced another article by Answers in Genesis that goes into more detail, which is linked further down in this article.

Recently, Snopes, a popular website, disseminated false information with the posting of an anti-Christian commentary with an agenda—an article which had not been fact-checked. Snopes.com posted a piece entitled “Why Creationism Bears All the Hallmarks of a Conspiracy Theory.” This article made many false accusations and disseminated false information about Answers in Genesis, me, and other creation-apologetics ministries.

How could a supposed fact-checking group get away with this? Easy. At the top of the article, an editor stated, “This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.” In other words, they did exactly what they tell others not to do: they published an article without fact-checking. They tried to justify posting the hostile commentary by stating it’s an article they considered (without any fact-checking for themselves) to be of interest to their readers. Obviously, to them, it’s ok to pass along information that hasn’t been fact-checked, but nobody else should dare do such a thing! What utter hypocrisy.

To read the rest of this first article, head on over to "Snopes Exposed!" That's just the beginning. I'd be much obliged if you would come back for the rest.

Readers of Piltdown Superman and other sites know that biblical creationists emphasize learning logic and critical thinking: secularists and leftists tell people what to think, while we want to help people learn how to think. Sometimes we have to confront those who want to dry gulch us and point out their viperine tactics.

What a way to begin: the title, “Why Creationism Bears All the Hallmarks of a Conspiracy Theory,” of a Snopes article reprinted from The Conversation is a question-begging epithet fallacy. Such an attacking title with emotive language lets us know what The Conversation’s and Snopes’ religious beliefs are up front. Our hope is to challenge their religious beliefs in this response. We are used to being hated and attacked. Jesus even said:

"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.” (John 15:18 NKJV)
Nevertheless, we want readers to know that we love and care for those at Snopes and The Conversation, regardless of their views against us, and would love to see them repent of their sin and turn to Jesus Christ for salvation. Our response is said with a caring heart, though there will be times where we will be bold.

To read the rest of this second of three, visit "Fact Checked: No Conspiracy Here (But a Lot of Fallacies There)". Be sure to come back for the final article so you can get a more complete understanding of what's happening.

Our final installment discusses how Braterman confuses the Intelligent Design movement with biblical creation science (a modicum of research from the ID people would dispel that notion). He also has several logical fallacies, claiming that creationism is "hostile to science". What ineffable twaddle! Again, an honest researcher could easily find out that there are many creation-believing scientists in many fields of science — and not just creation ministries. He also tries to hoodwink us further by slipping in what appears to be an endorsement of communism, and brings up irrelevant material that should have been scrutinized by fact checkers. But he seems to be more interested in spreading evoporn than promoting truth.

To read this last article, see "Name-Calling Anti-Creationist Fails on Facts".

Popular posts from this blog

Obey the Consensus Because Experts are Smarter than You

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen We have seen numerous example of how people are unwilling, even unable, to think rationally and challenge assertions. Many are willing to follow what "scientists say", but this is often a cessation of thought. Worse is appealing to the majority — the so-called consensus . Original image: Unsplash / Jo-Anne McArthur , modified at Big Huge Labs Let's mount up and ride to the top of yonder hill and get the bigger picture. Dr. Michael Crichton had some excellent statements about how science and consensus are mutually exclusive . While there is a consensus on many things, those things are not necessarily ironclad facts. Also, the consensus is often wrong and even biased: Geocentrism (the earth stands still while the sun, moon and stars orbit it) was the prevalent view for a mighty long time Things burned because they had phlogiston  in them Ignaz Semmelweis determined that doctors should wash their hands, but was ridiculed Piltdown Man fooled the scie

Silencing President Trump and Me

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article is going to cover a few shocking points that should be of concern to people who value free speech. Donald Trump and I are best buddies — yeah, like he knows that I even exist. But we do have a few things in common regarding censorship. Made at PhotoFunia I was riding the Fakebook trail one night in March of 2013 when I was suddenly booted. Huh? They demanded proof of my age! After complying, I was told,  Upon investigation, we have determined that you are ineligible to use Facebook. You can view our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities at the following address: https://www.facebook.com/terms.php Unfortunately, for safety and security reasons, we cannot provide additional information as to why your account was disabled. This decision is final. Thanks for your understanding Security reasons? Oh, please! Upon searching, this has happened to other people as well. They did not receive explanations or reinstatement, either. I thought it was a fluke,