Originally Published: December 20, 2014 6 a.m.
Recent letters by Byrd and McNabb, both creationists, are pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. McNabb calls evolution a religion. Is biology also a religion? Normal people define religion as believing in a supreme being, not belief in science.
The two Genesis creation stories are the reason why creationists must reject evolution to them, the Bible is inerrant. The Bible is indeed a holy book, the basis of Christianity.
However, most Christians see it as guidance from God, written by prophets, fallible men! This understanding is because any educated reader of the Bible can find verses that describe impossible or mythical events or that contradict each other (for examples: e-mail email@example.com).
McNabb's excuse that science journals won't publish articles by creationists is false. It's true they reject articles based on religion, evidence, not faith, is a requirement for science! On the Age of the Earth, ask creationists to cite articles giving evidence for a Young Earth (thousands versus billions of years). They cannot, they can only obfuscate by criticizing scientific evidence for an ancient Earth.
To bolster their ideas, creationists have a playbook they quote from, knowing that many details of science are too complex for laymen to understand. This ignorance allows them to get away with pseudo-science _ stuff that has been refuted by real scientists. Byrd's example of the dating of volcanic rocks is a prime example, as are McNabb's reasons why evolution breaks four laws of science. Unless creationists can cite scientific articles corroborating their views, they're delivering nonsense that sounds believable.
McNabb complains that creationism cannot be taught in schools. I guess he rejects the Constitution and its amendments. Shouldn't Navajo and Hopi creation stories be taught also?
Attend a McNabb seminar. Ask the speakers to cite articles in science journals that support their claims. You'll get evasion; no straight answers.