Dr Carl Wieland, Creation Ministries International

Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 69850

It’s easy for popular anticreationist books to distort and misrepresent the science involved in proper creationist claims made by scientifically trained and competent people, and also to set up strawmen to “demolish” in front of an unsuspecting audience.

Dr Carl Wieland, Creation Ministries International 56 Comments [1/26/2010 11:57:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 44
Submitted By: Frogflayer

WTF?! || meh

Username:
Comment:

Check here

1 2 3

#1103911

Anevilmeme

Great satire!

Oh wait, he was.........serious?

1/26/2010 2:10:25 PM

#1103936

Quantum Mechanic

Prager for the win right out of the gate!

1/26/2010 2:37:26 PM

#1103946

Old Viking

We're still waiting to hear the "science involved."

1/26/2010 2:54:09 PM

#1103957

David B.

"It’s easy for popular anticreationist books to distort and misrepresent the science involved in proper creationist claims"

I have to agree, it is easy to distort or misrepresent creationist claims in pop-sci books. Dawkins could have filled Unweaving the Rainbow with stories of creationists claiming some nonsense like the amount of dust on the moon or salt in the oceans proving the world is only 6000 years old.

What is less easy is distorting or misrepresenting the huge mountain of facts, experimental results, observations and confirmed predictions in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, something Wieland knows well. That these journals are also "anticreationist" shows up the "proper claims" for what they are.

Wieland and CMI split - fairly acrimoniously - from AIG and Ken Ham over the latters' continued use of discredited creationist arguments (link). For someone purporting to champion integrity among creationists, it is somewhat disingenuous to criticise others for pointing out that non-science and non-sense are still regularly trotted out by his supposed allies.

Wieland failed to put the creationist house in order, and now looks to find fault with those who point out that failure.

1/26/2010 3:05:52 PM

#1103969

Horsefeathers

"It’s easy for popular anticreationist books to distort and misrepresent the science involved in proper creationist claims made by scientifically trained and competent people,"

Name one of these people? Off hand I can think only of Behe who has a degree in an appropriate field. I wouldn't, however, consider him competent as he showed quite clearly at the Dover trial.

"and also to set up strawmen to “demolish” in front of an unsuspecting audience."

There's no need to use strawmen. Creationism falls apart all by itself if you look at it too hard.

1/26/2010 3:17:14 PM

#1103990

One might almost think that if it is all so easy, there might be something to it....

1/26/2010 3:57:26 PM

#1104000

Lucilius

Yes, yes, I confess; we do occasionally distort creationist claims.

Specifically, we sometimes treat them as worthy of serious discussion and reply. I repent - from now on I shall only respond with an appropriately disdainful laugh.

1/26/2010 4:17:49 PM

#1104008

Mike Sihl

Why not actually present the "science" for once rather than claiming there's a conspiracy by big science to suppress it.

1/26/2010 4:23:35 PM

#1104036

Xotan

Creationism is not science. It's mythology.

1/26/2010 4:55:06 PM

#1104048

I think you made a typo. Here, let me fix it:

It’s easy for popular creationist books to distort and misrepresent the science involved in proper scientific claims made by scientifically trained and competent people, and also to set up strawmen to “demolish” in front of an unsuspecting audience.

1/26/2010 5:06:45 PM

#1104079

There now doctor, don't be so hard on yourself.

1/26/2010 6:10:03 PM

#1104099

Leliel

...Oh shit.

*tosses irony meter in bomb disposal, runs*

1/26/2010 7:26:50 PM

#1104105

GodotIsWaiting4U

Wow, you've got this, like, entirely backwards.

1/26/2010 7:59:16 PM

#1104127

rds77

It’s easy for popular creationist books to distort and misrepresent the science involved in proper scientific claims made by scientifically trained and competent people, and also to set up strawmen to “demolish” in front of an unsuspecting audience.

Fixed by changing precisely 1.5 words. This is getting way too easy...

1/26/2010 8:32:53 PM

#1104155

Sagan's Ghost

Doctor, Doctor I have bad news,
You have a bad case of dumb-ass blues..

(I really should apologize to Robert Palmer or his estate or something....)

1/26/2010 9:13:38 PM

#1104170

The Jamo

Yeah, we're still waiting for that "science" component to your creationist claims. Call us when you have it ready for perusal.

1/26/2010 9:24:32 PM

#1104209

Haven't met any creationists in any of the science courses at my university.

And btw, those strawmen are sometimes dead on.

Besides, everyone knows that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything.

1/26/2010 9:44:03 PM

#1104273

Antichrist

You know, those statements aren't magic. Just because we use terms like "scientifically trained and competent people", "strawmen to demolish in front of an unsuspecting audience" doesn't make them automatically true if you use them. You have to know what the words mean and use them properly for the terms to make any sense.

In otherwords, shut the fuck up until you know what you're talking about.

1/26/2010 10:48:39 PM

#1104452

Hey, somebody has been watching himself in the mirror lately.

1/27/2010 4:50:08 AM

#1104510

Rebellion Dog

"anticreationist??"
This is a new one on me. Use of this term is intended to establish once and for all that it is the creationist pattern that is the norm, and the "anticreationist" position that is the fringe. Well, considering that 40% of the in-duh-viduals in this country beleive that the earth is less than 10,000 years old...

1/27/2010 6:01:20 AM

#1104609

Ange

From Wieland's website in a sidebar about a DVD by Jonathan Sarfati called "Arguments Creationists should NOT use":

"Bottom line: hold ’facts’ loosely and focus intensely on God’s written Word as the absolute guide to evidence interpretations!"

Way to display your training and competency chaps.

(http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind)

1/27/2010 7:47:19 AM

#1104661

I Read About The Afterlife

It's easy for popular creationist books to distort and misrepresent the science involved in proper evolutionist claims made my scientifically trained and competent people, and also set up strawmen to "demolish" in front on an unsuspecting audience.

I think that is what Dr. Carl Wieland meant to say.

1/27/2010 8:46:14 AM

#1104770

Gareth1984

This is the best example of psychological projection I have ever seen. The behaviour attributed to scientists in this quote is typical of creationists, yet I have never seen any genuine science engage in such behaviour preffering to explain the evidence instead.

1/27/2010 11:03:58 AM

#1105019

Dr. Novakaine

To this I respond: what science?

1/27/2010 4:07:48 PM

#1105317

They can't really misrepresent the 'science' behind creationism/ID because you bastards won't enlighten us as to what the hell that science actually is.

1/28/2010 4:22:38 AM

1 2 3