# Are creationists dishonest? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2000, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043 "2000-04-20T00:29:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2000, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/61 "2000-04-20T20:48:00Z")
Bantmof: Disagree all you like. Planes can indeed fly upside down. The ailerons need to be adjusted to overcome the Bernoulli principle. In this case it is the air pushing down on the ailerons which forces the planes nose to point upwards, maintaining level flight. Note that it doesn’t necessarily fly very well like this. As you say there are other forces at work, so let’s leave it at that. ---
**Author:** ![bantmof](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@bantmof](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bantmof)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2000, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/62 "2000-04-20T20:56:00Z")
Scylla - all I can say is that this is a well understood science, and the popular conception (resulting from bad explanations in elementary physics texts) that airplanes are sucked upwards by low pressure is, while not total falsehood per se, a serious mischaracterization of what really is happening. There is absolutely no doubt that airplanes push a mass of air downwards sufficient to, by Newton’s laws, counteract their weight. They could not fly if this did not happen. The evidence for this is simply overwhelming. Want me to start a thread for it? I can point to some good resources on the subject. – peas on earth ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2000, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/63 "2000-04-20T21:03:00Z")
SingleDad wrote: > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > 41 - No Population III stars. All elements above the two simplest (hydrogen and helium) are called “heavier elements,” “post-helium elements,” and elements with “more metal.” These definitions will help explain that which follows: > > According to the theory, the first stars made after the Big Bang were called “Population III stars,” and only had hydrogen and helium. They are said to then have exploded in super-novas, which pushed gas around them into “Population II stars,” containing more post-helium elements. These are said to then have exploded, making “Population I stars” with still more “metal” elements. (This is how the theory explains how the heavier—post-helium—elements came into existence.) > > ## But astronomers tell us the theory is incorrect: In the sky they only find stars with a variety of elements. There are no “Population III” stars out there.—pp. 28-29. > > Contrary to fact. Very Distant galaxies do indeed contain metal-poor stars. I hate to sound like I’m agreeing with a Creation Scientist here \, but in this one case, he’s right. The stars in the galactic halo, or in very distant galaxies, are indeed metal- **poor** – but to my knowledge, no stars have yet been discovered that are **completely** devoid of elements heavier than helium. This is what is meant by the nonexitence of “Population III” stars. However, I believe the Big Bang would have produced a **few** traces of elements heavier than helium. Carbon, for example, is relatively easy to form out of helium under very high temperatures and pressures, via the triple-alpha process. If this is the case, we should **never** see a star whose spectrum shows no trans-helium elements whatsoever, and thus the lack of Pop. III stars is exactly what we’d expect. We now return you to our regularly scheduled episode of “I didn’t evolve from a chimpanzee.” ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2000, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/64 "2000-04-20T21:33:00Z")
[/quote] No stars have yet been discovered that are completely devoid of elements heavier than helium. [/quote] This is true. Normal stellar fusion produces elements up to, IIRC, carbon (my astrophysics is not fresh). Elements up to lead are produced in the later fusion stages (when the star exhausts the lighter elements and heats up enough to fuse the next heavier. The heaviest elements (after lead up to uranium) are produced in actual supernova explosions. > [@](#): > > However, I believe the Big Bang would have produced a few traces of elements heavier than helium. IIRC, no detectable trace of anything heavier than lithium was produced immediately after the Big Bang due to esoteric atomic physics which I didn’t understand even when I was reading it. * * * Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life! ---
**Author:** ![bantmof](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@bantmof](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bantmof)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2000, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/65 "2000-04-20T21:49:00Z")
Ok, I started another thread called “how do airplanes fly?”, so we don’t disrupt this one. – peas on earth ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2000, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/66 "2000-04-20T22:01:00Z")
> [@](#): > > I think Spiritus is referring to the way Chinese rebels during the Boxer Rebellion believed their magical fighting abilities would make them bulletproof. A lot of them were shot by European troops, and proven not to be bulletproof. We have a winner. Please send $29.95 tou Sweepstakes Central to insure prompt delivery of your GALA PRIZE PACKAGE. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2000, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/67 "2000-04-21T03:29:00Z")
Agisofia asked: > [@](#): > > Why do so-called creation scientists seem to have such a hard time with the concept of theistic evolution? To get an absolute answer, you’d have to ask them. But let me answer from my experience. If you don’t believe in the literal word of the Bible, then you’re not a real Christian. Sound simple and straw-mannish? Alas, it’s neither. I’ve seen them say things like, “Well, if we say Genesis isn’t literally true, where do we stop? Next thing, you’ll be saying Jesus isn’t our savior.” > [@](#): > > Why do the fundamentalist/creation scientist types have such a hard time with this idea? Because many of them tend to see things in black and white. Either the Bible is literally true or it’s not. You can’t have it part way. > [@](#): > > I’ll say it again. The Bible is not a science textbook. And I’ll say it along with you. But there are some people who will never listen. * * * “Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is, to my mind, the most beautiful in all of science.” – Susan Blackmore, _The Meme Machine_ ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2000, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/68 "2000-04-21T03:48:00Z")
> [@](#): > > If you don’t believe in the literal word of the Bible, then you’re not a real Christian. That’s another thing that steams me up about the fundies. I have many serious, committed Christians in my family. These people adhere to the _real_ injunction of the Bible: To live as Christ. Although I’m an atheist myself, I have tremendous respect for their views and the way they live their life. I have tried to emulate at least their ethical and moral standards. * * * Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life! ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2000, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/69 "2000-04-21T03:52:00Z")
Don’t you know that hating science, homosexuals, other religions, atheists, etc. are all part of being a _real_ Christian? Jeez… ---
**Author:** ![Occam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Occam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Occam)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2000, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/70 "2000-04-21T03:52:00Z")
The problem is Creationists decide the answer before they look at the problem. All Creationists are first religious then try and prove their faith in the physical world. If I decided the sky was purple and I based it on faith, I could then use anything I wanted to prove that it used to be. “See!” I would say, “There are purple flowers, they must have come from the sky!” Or…“There is purple ink, and it must have come when rain came from the purple sky.” * * * “Clatu, Verrata…nector?..neck-tie?” ---
**Author:** ![bantmof](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@bantmof](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bantmof)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2000, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/71 "2000-04-21T04:21:00Z")
Maybe the IPU is really the invisible _purple_ unicorn. Hmm. I have the feeling there might be two IPU-worshiper sects here. Anyway, I agree with what David said, and also I wonder if there might be some effect just of wanting to cling to the ideas you already have. The more you invest in a belief (both time and emotion), the harder it is to let it go. This is something few if any of us are immune to. I’ve noticed it in myself; if I’ve believed something for a long time, it’s pretty unpleasant to stumble upon evidence that I was wrong all that time. Sometimes instead of changing beliefs, it’s emotionally easier to rationalize away any contrary evidence. So you can invent elaborate systems of lies to avoid having to face up to things. I’ve been there and done that. – peas on earth ---
**Author:** ![cdobney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c0e974/32.png) [@cdobney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cdobney)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2000, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/72 "2000-04-21T09:21:00Z")
Elleon: I just went to that pathlights encyclopedia website you suggested. ``` Wow. If this is where you are getting your information, well, I don't really know what to say, except that I recommend this site highly to any "enlightened creationists" who wonder why many who support evolution consider creation "scientists" to be either stupid, ignorant, or dishonest. I'm serious, guys. The guy who wrote this stuff really doesn't have a clue. If I were to pose as a Creation scientist and put up a website to discredit Creationist arguments, I couldn't have done a better job. Seek Truth Always ``` ---
**Author:** ![CheapBastid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8baadc/32.png) [@CheapBastid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CheapBastid)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2000, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/73 "2000-04-21T16:21:00Z")
> [@](#): > > …how is one to describe spiritual reality to someone who has no personal experience of such a reality? … A particularly acute form of this problem faces the young-earth movement in its attempts to use revisionist young-earth “science” for this purpose. If the science is incredible or manifestly false, then, rather than pointing unbelievers to God, it may drive them further away. Jesus’ question to Nicodemus 2000 years ago suggests a set of challenges to Christian apologists today: if our claims about earthly, empirically testable things such as natural history are demonstrably untrue, how can we expect unbelievers to accept our testimony on subjects which are not empirically testable and which call for a faith response? The answer is clear: we cannot. If our testimony on scientific matters is demonstrably false, rather than giving unbelievers reasons to consider the Gospel, we will give them grounds to reject it. To put it another way, if the Church demonstrates itself to be unreliable in the interpretation of scientific matters which are subject to verification by unbelievers, it undermines, by association, the credibility of our claims that unbelievers need to pay attention to the Bible’s statements about spiritual matters which are not empirically verifiable by unbelievers. If Christians’ claims about physical reality cannot be trusted, what grounds do unbelievers have to trust our claims about spiritual realities? Demonstrably false “science” gives the lost “reasons to reject” the Gospel — “reasons to disbelieve” rather than “reasons to believe.” From the [Reasons To Believe](http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.html) site ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2000, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/74 "2000-04-22T05:26:00Z")
Back to the OP. Are creationists dishonest? Not all of them are knowingly dishonest. Of those who are sincere creationists, the vast majority are fools. Of those who are intelligent creationists, the vast majority are frauds. The second category use the first for authoritarian purposes. The remainder - sincere, intelligent creationists - were brainwashed young. Cognitive dissonance reduction is a strong force. We should be patient with the last category. The second category are many and should be feared. The first should be crushed. It is unfortunately not always easy to tell which is which. ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2000, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/75 "2000-04-21T18:15:00Z")
Cheap Bastid: I tried that same logic with the fundies over at LBMB. They didn’t seem to care much though, that they were turning people OFF to what they preached… Excuse me, but I need to look for some noses, since they all seemed to have been severed to spite their faces… * * * Yer pal, Satan [http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif](http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif) _Still not smoking, but away from my meter!_ ---
**Author:** ![CheapBastid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8baadc/32.png) [@CheapBastid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CheapBastid)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2000, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/76 "2000-04-21T18:32:00Z")
Satan - In re-reading the quote I posted, I realize that while it speaks to the heart of the frustration many feel with Creation ‘Science’ it also is a call to arms to the Fundies to ‘prove’ the bible. A double edged sword that cuts deeply… ---
**Author:** ![CalifBoomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CalifBoomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalifBoomer)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2000, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/77 "2000-04-21T23:26:00Z")
Answer to the OP: No, creationists are not ‘dishonest.’ Scientists, however, like Sagan’s ‘rotifers in flatland’ simply do not have all the facts. An honest scientist will admit that more is _unknown_ than is _known._ The majority of the posters on this board who lay claim to ‘science’ have no comprehension of real science. Rather they enjoy the self-aggrandizement of riding on the coattails of science. :: ---
**Author:** ![JDeMobray](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@JDeMobray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDeMobray)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2000, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/78 "2000-04-22T00:46:00Z")
I would imagine, CalifBoomer, that is could be considered worse to believe something with no evidence whatsoever (I can fly, I’m the King of the World, the Jews are out to get me) than to believe something about which some information is unknown (My phone is ringing, it must be the matress company’s hit men sent to kill me for tearing off tags, The universe was created in a “big bang”) ---
**Author:** ![JDeMobray](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@JDeMobray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDeMobray)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2000, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/79 "2000-04-22T00:48:00Z")
IT . . . IT could be construed. Damnit. \> ☹ ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2000, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043/80 "2000-04-22T01:58:00Z")
CalifBoomer said: > [@](#): > > No, creationists are not ‘dishonest.’ Well, some are. You’re living proof of that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-creationists-dishonest/18043.md?page=5)