Posted by: FLPatriot | August 11, 2009

The blogs are a buzz with CreoZerg, so what?

The last day or so the blogs here on WordPress have been a buzz with news and reports from CreoZerg. For those that do not know what this is, evolutionist PZ Myers took a bunch of his fans on a field trip to the Creation Museum. Now all these evolutionist bloggers are gloating over their adventure and making fun of the “Creationists”. I guess that proves they are right.

I do not know how we can ever hold to our knowledge of creation because they made fun of a museum, this has destroyed everything I thought I knew. Ok, back to reality. I am glad that evolutionists, Darwinists and atheists alike took time out of their busy lives to visit the Creation museum. My only hope is that one of them heard the Gospel and will throw off the chains of bondage that holds them to this world and accepts the truth of Jesus.

Thank you PZ for showing me that some things never change. Kids will always act like kids and evolutionists will always mock the truth.



  1. The point of the trip was to see for themselves the things that creationists are telling people and how they were doing it.

    If something is ridiculous, it is by definition fit for ridicule. The creation ‘museum’ fits the bill.

  2. You said, “My only hope is that one of them heard the Gospel and will throw off the chains of bondage that holds them to this world and accepts the truth of Jesus.”

    You accept Jesus as true. Fine. They accept evolution as true, and they have their research to back up their beliefs.

    It would be nice if you and the other creationists could accept that they are pursuing truth, and that they have evidence for their truth. That would be a nice starting point for an intelligent dialogue on the two points of view.

    What do you think?

  3. Thaddeus:I accept they are pursing truth, never said they where not. Several demonstrated they had no desire to learn anything when they went, but I have heard that most where very respectful and definitely displayed a genuine curiosity.

    I think that intelligent dialog can not be had until you stop genualizing, “you and the other creationists”, or stop assuming you have the answers, “they have their research to back up their beliefs”.

    I have plenty of research to back up my beliefs and plenty of other research to put a shadow of doubt over their beliefs.

    morsec0de: Good to hear form you again, and after reading your post on your blog I am happy to hear everything went well. Now back to business as usual.

    The differences is the respect level of evolutionists and creationists. You don’t see a group of creationists going to the Pacific Science Center in Seattle and mocking the lame “Lucy” display. I guess it takes a level of maturity to conduct ones self with dignity, and that level of maturity is hard to find in a college professor that gets his picture on a children’s ride and then lies about the nature of the display.

  4. Mcoville:

    I don’t see claiming that scientists are responsible for killing people, like Ben Stein, as being respectful.

  5. Mike (or is it Michael?),

    You said, “I accept they are pursing truth, never said they where not.”

    Great. I’m glad you agree with this.

    You also said, “I think that intelligent dialog can not be had until you stop genualizing, ‘you and the other creationists’….”

    Fair enough.

    You also said, “… or stop assuming you have the answers, ‘they have their research to back up their beliefs’.”

    I disagree with this part of your statement. To the extent that I have researched the issues, there is research to back up their (my) beliefs. Ultimately, I am not assuming that I have the answers. I am actively verifying my positions.

    You then said, “I have plenty of research to back up my beliefs and plenty of other research to put a shadow of doubt over their beliefs.”

    I guess the part that I am most curious about is to what extent you have looked, not at the research for ‘your side’, but at the research for ‘their side’. In other words, do you actively read up or research the findings of the scientists who advocate an evolutionary model? And, do you generally trust their findings? Or, on what basis do you distrust their findings?

    Similarly, when people for ‘your side’ come up with findings, do you research their positions? Or, do you just accept it? We all have a tendency to accept with less scrutiny the statements of those we agree with. We all have a less trustful stance towards those we disagree with.

  6. mosrc0de: are you saying that no scientist has ever killed anyone? Then again, is one person really a good demonstration of a group?

    Thaddeus: Good comment, I like this discussion and respect your point of view. I may have worded it wrong because I will agree that evolutionists do have their research that they use to back up their beliefs, I was trying to point to the fact that your statement implied a lack of research on creationist scientists side.

    I do regular read books on both sides of the debate and try to look at both sides with equal skepticism. I enjoyed reading “Darwin’s Black Box” from Michael Behe, but disagreed with some of his views in it. I read Richard Dawkins “God Delusion”, which was not very well written, and “The Selfish Gene”, which after reading I am surprised evolutionist hold this man up as a figure head.

    I have recently started reading “The Making of the Fittest” by Sean Carroll, and all though I find his research fascinating I have not found much that helps the evolutionists argument in that book, but it was recommended to me by an evolutionist and I will continue to read it and see what I find out.

    Everyone has a presupasition when it comes to interepreting what they read or writing their books. I try to take the information I am reading and look at it under the light that the author has their beliefs that will influence their writings, then I try to look at from their point of view. I then sit down and look at the completed work through the glasses of my life’s knowledge and form my opinion.

    I have found this is a fair way to judge the information I am presented and tends to filter out a lot of biasness. It often disappoints me the number of times that evolutionists like to label a scientist based on their beliefs so that they can dismiss their research based on it.

    Now, how about you, read much research from “creationists”?

  7. What got me going on researching evolution was when I came across the following statement by Daniel Dennett in ‘Breaking the Spell’ — “According to a recent survey, only about a quarter of the United States understands that evolution is about as well established as the fact that water is H20.” This is the same quote I used on my last blog post, which was a survey.

    When I read that I thought, ‘Wow. That’s a strong statement.’ I learned the theory of evolution back in high school and I understood it and agreed with it. But, I didn’t think you could compare its level of acceptance to the acceptance that water is understood to be H2O.

    So, about eight or ten weeks ago I really started looking into this. I wanted to see if I agree with Dennett’s statement. I would say that at this point, I see his point. I agree with his statement. I have come across a lot of evidence piling in from different fields of research that all corroborate evolution as a theory. What really cinches it for me is when considering some of the findings from genetics. The probabilities that evolution is not predicting the results — that is, the probabilites that the findings are due to chance alone, — are astronomically small.

    Since I engaged you on my blog, I picked up ‘Your Inner Fish’ by Neil Shubin. I highly recommend this book. Very engaging and illuminating. The other day a friend loaned me a copy of ‘Only a Theory — Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul’, by Kenneth R. Miller. I haven’t started that one. According to my discussion with my friend, this book cites some of the same research from genetics that I have alluded to here. (Shubin’s book does not cover these same research findings)

    On the creationist/Intelligent Design side of the debate I haven’t read any of their books yet. I have spent time looking at the websites for Intelligent design and creationism.

    I must admit that I have a hard time wanting to invest time in reading a book by a creationist. The problem is that I have considered a number of their arguments from their websites and I can see the flaw in their thinking. Bring me a creationist argument and I believe I can defeat it by pointing out its logical flaw(s), without having to resort to help from a biologist.

    I am not a biologist, as I have said. But, I have taught math and science (Physics and Chem) at the high school level. And I have a very good grasp of logic. So, picking out the errors in their thinking is not difficult. (Currently, I am not teaching. I now write software.)

    I would be open to reading from an Intelligent Design advocate. You mentioned Behe and Darwin’s Black Box, of which I have heard. Maybe I’ll pick it up.

    Generally, I find the Intelligent Design advocates more palatable, because at least they accept the general tenets of evolution. I find the evidence so overwhelming in favor of evolution that I would have a hard time putting time into a book by someone not accepting that as a starting point. Someone not accepting evolution in some general fashion would have to have some very weighty evidence against it, and a theory that explains the evidence just as well as evolution, or better.

    The problem with the intelligent design advocates is that their position basically boils down to, “Consider some phenomemon called X. Evolutionists can’t explain X. Therefore, God.” The problem I have with this is that you can rephrase their position without greatly changing its meaning by adding the word ‘yet’. i.e., “Consider some phenomenon called X. Evolutionists can’t yet explain X.” In other words, just because no one has come up with an adequate explaination for X doesn’t mean that no one will come up with one. So, the lack of an adequate explaination from the naturalistic position doesn’t defeat evolution. Evolution already explains a lot. The fact that it can’t explain X doesn’t mean it is wrong. It just means there is more research and thinking to do.

    Perhaps someone can come up with a different theory for X that does explain it. That would be worth reading. But, positing that God is the theory that explains X isn’t satisfying to me. God may or may not exist. But, when science tries to explain various phenomena, it is trying to show how the phenomena can be explained in terms of the world we live in and not in terms of a supernatural world that is only available to the imagination. Supernaturalistic explainations are as good as saying, “I really don’t know what the answer is”, because they don’t enhance your understanding.

    If you want to take what I have written here and recommend a book from the creationist/ID side of the debate, I would be willing to look up that book. What one book do you think would be most worthwhile to me?

    Also, I would like to ask you one other question. It seems to me that Creationism, especially ‘Young Earth’ Creationism, contradicts some of the thinking from the Intelligent Design crowd. Which of these two points of view do you find more plausible? You have links on your blog to sites from both camps. But, they can’t both be right, can they?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: