Comments on: Young Earth Creationism at the Giant’s Causeway: a grave error of judgement

By: John Lowe

John Lowe — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 09:55:02 +0000

Observing ice cores is not the same as observing the past.
we make obsrvations of ice cores and and interpret them according to our worlview. Michael J Oard is a meterologist with an interest in the ice age. In one of his articles on the subject he says, “The wild oscillations in the oxygen isotope ratio during the Ice Age is interpreted by uniformitarian scientists as catastrophic changes in temperature in the North Atlantic region. These are used to justify speculation on rapid climate change in the present climate due to increased greenhouse gasses. It is the uniformitarian stretched-out time scale that is the main cause of the problem. Within a creationist model, the large fluctuations can be explained by events during the Ice Age. With much thicker annual layers in the Ice Age portion of the core, the oscillations could simply be annual layers caused by seasonal changes in temperature or more prolonged changes in temperature caused by variable volcanic dust loading in the stratosphere.

Interpretation of ice cores is another example where different assumptions, using the very same data, result in quite different conclusions.”

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:54:57 +0000

What creations say is that God was a magician who created the universe out of nothing in 7 days 6,000 years ago. What evolutionists say is that if there was a creator he was the greatest physicist and chemist of all time and he did some splendid work 4.6 billion years ago and may have done some even before that. Now, if you are looking for a supreme being, which one would you choose? I’ll go for the old one not the young upstart.

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:43:52 +0000

May I recommend you take a trip the Greenland with an ice core drill. The past can be observed in all it’s magnificence. If you budget won’t run to it, take a core sample from a very large tree but not one of mine.

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:37:29 +0000

You are right they should be allowed to ask them and THEN be decried. With plenty of evidence of course.

By: John Lowe

John Lowe — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 03:21:22 +0000

What “solid evidence is denied? Actually the creationist worldview is ‘God created the universe’. The evolutionist worldview is ‘no one created the universe.’ We therefore have a choice between “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and “In the beginning nothing exploded and became everything”. Once you have made that choice you go on to explain your observations of the universe in line with that choice.

By: John Lowe

John Lowe — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:43:16 +0000

The past is not open to the scientific method because it cannot be observed.

By: John Lowe

John Lowe — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:31:51 +0000

What evidence do creationists deny? Actually both Creationistrs and Evolutionists use the same evidence. The difference is in their interpretation which depends on their worldview. Evolutionism has a naturalistic worldview and Creationism has a theistic worldview. Put bluntly it is either “In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth”, or, “In the begining there was a big bang”. the reason you think creationists “deny solid evidence” is beceause any discussion of creationism has been suppressed and hidden from you. you are unaware of the masses of evidence that creationists have. Evolutionists ‘have the microphone’ and won’t let the public hear any voice but their own. This is changing now because of the internet, and contrary views are starting to break through.

By: MIke

MIke — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:06:52 +0000

Creationism is a ‘worldview’ based on interpretation of written materials and denial of solid evidence (as is Holocaust denial). Evolution (and the great age of the Earth) is not a worldview, it is inarguable reality, based on an entire planet full of scientific evidence (but contradicting some written material). Caleb are welcome to promote their own views on their own website and in their own literature – this debate occurred because they persuaded someone at the NT to promote their views at the Causeway Visitor Centre.

By: John Lowe

John Lowe — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 01:01:29 +0000

The difference between origins and the holocaust is that we have massive ammounts of documentation from eye witnesses to the holocaust. Evolutionism and creationism have to rely on forensic evidence interptreted through thier worldviews. I don’t know anything about Caleb but why shouldn’t it “promote its view and persuade others”? How can that be called “denying people basic knowledge”. This has to be one of the most blatant cases of ‘the pot calling the kettle black’. Evolutionists take every opportunity to silence criticism of their own worldview. The Giant’s Causeway Visitor Centre is a typical case in point.

By: Mike Simpson

Mike Simpson — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:00:27 +0000

@Eugene
No-one would mind if creationism was included in the myths and legends section along with Fin nMcCool. But it’s not. It is presented as if it is a valid scientific debate. Anyone can believe what they want, of course, no matter how dumb, but an organisation like Caleb seeks to promote its views and persuade others. That is: they seek to deny people basic knowledge. This exhibit promotes their ideas as valid and they are crowing about it on their website.

Consider this: would it be okay for a museum exhibit about Jewish history to present anti-Semitic ideology as a valid alternative point of view and say that there is continuing debate about whether or not the Holocaust happened?

By: Eugene

Eugene — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:42:12 +0000

The National Trust is simply saying that there are other points of view. The science says otherwise. If a visitor does not share the scientific viewpoint then that is her business. Why the outrage? It is unlikely to change opinions. Science makes its stance known and it seems to me, clear, and that is all it need do. Australian aboriginal creation stories are interesting, amazing and enable a spirituality that is intimately linked to the land. A different epistemology. That is ok is it not?

By: Creationism and Geological History: What Do They Have in Common? | Geo-HeritageScience

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:49:28 +0000

[...] find this unfortunate, and no doubt do many others – as other interesting articles have discussed. However fortunately, there is a petition that you can sign to help rectify the [...]

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:46:14 +0000

As bonetired has pointed out, this has obviously sparked much controversy and vast column inches (no pun intended!) on the topic. I agree it is an error in judgement, but I feel it’s also working out to be a brilliant publicity stunt. I for one hadn’t thought about Giant’s Causeway in recent living memory, however I would quite like to go now, to see both the geological formation and the controversial sign! On that note, I think the NT might continue to sit on the fence for a while and see if visitor numbers creep up…

By: An open letter to the National Trust « Oliver's Paleo Blog

An open letter to the National Trust « Oliver's Paleo Blog — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:53:22 +0000

[...] myself and Jan Zalasiewicz have cowritten an article for Leicester Exchanges, which you can see here Sharing…EmailPrintDigg Pin ItShare on TumblrLike this:Like3 bloggers like [...]

By: J H

J H — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:35:35 +0000

“Legend has it that the columns were in fact a bridge built by the giant Finn McCool so that he could go to Scotland without getting his feet wet.”

This in your own words is “simply wrong.” Of course it is; it’s a legend.

The National Trust have done what you have done by offering this legend. It is just an interpretation, whether true or false.

NT states creationist thinking “is different from that of current mainstream science.” This to me is another way of saying it’s a legend.

Aboriginal creationism is incredibly fascinating. It tells similar stories about the creation of features of the land. However fascinating their stories, they are also simply wrong.

What’s the big fuss? I don’t believe the National Trust are offering creationist theory as a rational debate. They are made up of entirely (mostly) rational people.

However absurd young earth creationism is, the truth is that as the NT state “some people… share this perspective.”

I would perhaps remove “specifically here in Northern Ireland” from the wording, which makes it sound bigger than it is. But this is hardly a grave error of judgement. That is simply wrong.

By: Mike Simpson

Mike Simpson — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:19:46 +0000

Anyone can make an error of judgement. What is remarkable here is the NT’s dogged refusal to admit their mistake, which is just digging them into a deeper and deeper hole. It’s one tiny part of the visitor centre and could be easily removed or switched off. Surely they must have realised by now that the loss of reputation and income they will face from aggrieved non-creationists far outweighs whatever kudos/income this has earned them with creationists.

By: Dan Porter-Brown

Dan Porter-Brown — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:14:24 +0000

Debating articles of faith with the principles of scientific investigation is the equivalent of taking a chess set to a draughts tournament. Whilst the scientific method constrains the adherent to strict rules about evidence based knowledge, faith has no such restrictions giving its proponents free reign to pick and choose facts that suit their case. The main problem in relation to the Giant’s Causeway Visitor Centre is that a post-modern desperation to give all view points an equal hearing plays into the hand of those with a point to make and the will to make it. YEC, if it is to be mentioned in relation to the Giant’s Causeway, should sit alonside the myths of warring giants and the divine intervention of the Spaghetti Monster.

By: Stephen Moreton

Stephen Moreton — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:25:54 +0000

For those interested in what creationists actually say about the Causeway, Australian creationist Tasman Walker has written about it, trying to interpret it as a product of Noah’s flood. His two articles are to be found here: http://creation.com/a-giant-cause and here: http://creation.com/the-inter-basaltic-bed-at-giants-causeway These are used by Northern Irish creationists in their propaganda.
I researched and debunked the claims in these articles and caught Walker out lying. And I mean lying. See my article “Facts meet fantasies at the Giant’s Causeway” 2009, Earth Science Ireland Issue 6, p. 37-9. On-line: http://www.habitas.org.uk/es2k/ click on “magazine” and the whole issue will download as a pdf. Although there were other criticisms of the creationists’ attempts to get into the visitor centre, including some harsh words in “Earth Science Ireland” mine is unique in that it is the only one that actually addresses their technical claims, and debunks them.
After publication I made sure the creationists knew about it as I posted links on their websites and told Walker directly. Now go to Walker’s recent report about the current visitor centre debate: http://creation.com/giants-causeway-visitor-centre-opens
You will find that he cheerfully points to those other criticisms and dismisses them as a “battle of worldviews” but he does not mention the one critique that actually demolishes his case on technical grounds and shows it to be a load of rubbish. Now that’s what I call lying by omission. There is a comments section following his report. I submitted a comment politely pointing to my article. It has not appeared. Old habits die hard I guess.

By: Matt Sheard

Matt Sheard — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:25:50 +0000

I share your position that Young Earth Creationism is a load of cobblers, but I see nothing wrong with what the NT has done here. They’ve stated the geological facts in a way which most visitors will understand. They then noted that the Causeway influenced debate with young earth creationists and then noted, briefly, that some people still hold that position today. To have not said that this position is still held by some may have given the impression that nobody believes in a young earth any more, which is incorrect. Indeed, by my interpretation of the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics the NT has done exactly as it should in this matter. It has not given credence to those beliefs, it has objectively stated that a difference of opinion exists.

By: David Tyler

David Tyler — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:10:00 +0000

This article and the comments so far are reading too much into this issue. The NT is not giving credence to creationism. Rather it is celebrating the way the Giant’s Causeway can “arouse debate and challenging questions for as long as visitors come to see it”. Ultimately, this debate should be about evidences. It is sleep-inducing if a line is drawn to specify the boundaries of legitimate questions. The NT is right to think that if people have questions outside the mainstream, they should be allowed to ask them without being decried.