Creationists Shouldn't Use
(but what about the ones they continue to use?)
Answers in Genesis has posted an article called Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. As its title suggests it lists arguments AiG claims shouldn't be used to [try to] refute evolution. We must wonder what their motives are. Are they attempting to clean up their act and carry out some real scientific investigations? Predictably the answer has to be no.
Regardless of what nonsense creationists prune from their armoury they are hopelessly shackled by AiG's opening statement, "The primary authority for Answers in Genesis is the infallible Word of God, the Bible". There we have it unequivocally - real science has no place in the myths of creationism.
Typical of the warped thinking of creationists is this statement from their article:
"Evolutionists continually revise their theories because of new data, so it should not be surprising or distressing that some creationist scientific theories need to be revised too."
The problem with this statement is that creationists have NO scientific theories to begin with. They have innumerable pseudo scientific theories, but regardless of sound evidence being presented time and again showing these theories to be grossly in error, they steadfastly refuse to revise the majority of them.
Another statement from AiG's article needs comment:
"It's notable that some skeptics criticise creationists when they retract doubtful arguments, but the same people accuse creationists of being unwilling to change their mindsthere's no pleasing some people!"
If any criticism is levelled at creationists it is not that they retract a few doubtful arguments but that they don't retract enough. For instance, if Ken Ham retracted all the doubtful arguments he uses in his pitiful home Schooling programs he'd have none left.
All AiG has done is remove some of the more obvious tripe. But of course they won't retract one particular absurdity and the easiest one for scientists to falsify, namely the Noachian Flood (see There is No Evidence for a World Wide Flood). The "flood" is the cornerstone of creationism. It's simple really, no flood, no creation as described in The Book of Genesis. End of story.
The truth is that creationism is filled with mountains of absurdities and all the tinkering won't make their nonsense scientific.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use