I thought your story looked very familiar. I had read it on Glenn Morton's site ("Personal Stories of the Creation/Evolution Struggle",
No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/person.htm). I might have even read it on talk.origins, though I've not been there in a long time, ever since Google changed their reader.
Basically, I've been trying to tell creationists the same thing since around 1990. Only I've been concentrating more on the effects that relying almost exclusively on false teachings has on their followers, especially when they finally realize that their religious leaders had been lying to them all along. Two very common themes in atheists' testimonials of why they lost their faith are having been betrayed and/or lied to by their religion or religious leaders. Couple that with "creation science" having taught them that the truth of Scripture and of Christianity depends on "creation science's" claims being true and you have a perfect formula for deconversion. As well as an excellent way to keep non-believers from ever considering Christianity: all they have to do is take the creationists' word for it, see that their claims are wrong, and conclude as directed by the creationists that Christianity is false and that there is no God. Ironically, while science is incapable of proving or disproving the existence of God (not that science would want to), the creationists have created a test for the existence of God -- one that is sure to fail -- and so it is the creationists who succeed in disproving the existence of God, albeit via a false test. Small wonder that "creation science" is considered one of the greatest single contributors to the growth and spread of atheism.
Back around 1990, I had put up a web site primarily to host essays I had posted on CompuServe during the mid-to-late 80's --
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/index.html. Because I had thrown that index page together in a hurry it did not clearly express my position, so I set about to reorganize it:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/new_index.html. Since my life began to shatter around that time, it is still a work in progress and very imcomplete, but you can still glean some idea of my position from it; I apologize in advance. Of much greater use are my quotes page (
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html) and my links page (
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/links.html).
Although I have encountered obvious cases of creationists deliberately employing lies and deception, I also realize that most creationists using those same false claims do not realize that they are false. So part of my approach is to try to discuss with them the effects of using false claims -- it's only lying if you know that it's false. But whether you know that it's false or not, the effects of using false claims is the same, especially when you rely heavily on using false claims to support and promote your religion. From your post, I believe that you would agree.
Nor are we alone. I've collected a number of pertinent quotes on my quotes page (
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html), some of which you might find useful:
Dr Jonathan Sarfati of Answers In Genesis (AiG) in AiG Negative Feedback, 02 December 2002 (link to source broken -- they appear to now only go back to 2003):
quote:
As said in the original Don’t Use page, the harm is in using something which is not true, because the cause of the one who is ”the truth’ cannot be helped thereby. And your own recent experience reinforces something else we said”that using discredited arguments can backfire on the user. So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire, and return their focus to the Word of God not "evidence".
...
But more and more over the last few years, we have noticed tens of thousands of Christians excitedly using arguments over the Web, for instance, that are a plain embarrassment to those with scientific training. It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons. Further, and most importantly, it had escalated to the point where it was a hindrance to soul winning, since it gave the hearers a "legitimate" excuse to reject Christ. And all we did at that point was to publish an "advice" article. The only time it became relevant to a specific creationist was when Kent [Hovind] himself decided to align himself publicly with a justification of false arguments. If it had been one or two minor points of disagreement, OK, but when it reinforces some of the most blatant fallacies, and even defends fraud, at what point does one NOT face one's responsibilities to the innocents being "slaughtered" in the belief that they are getting sound ammunition?
...
... , we actually do know people who say they almost gave the faith away when they found out that a particular argument was fallacious, and who say that finding Christians with the integrity to avoid falsehood, no matter what the cost, helped restore it. Also, in the last day or so, a leading atheistic anti-creationist organization said that while they disagreed with almost everything we stand for, they said we were "admirable" and "showed integrity" in trying to persuade other creationists not to use bad arguments. Who knows what sort of witness this could be? We know of many people, outside and inside of the church, who will no longer even look at or consider the authority of the Bible in Genesis, in its history, cosmology, etc. because of bad experiences with blatant pseudo-arguments applied by enthusiasts who had been fed creationist non-arguments.
Dr. Don Batten of Answers in Genesis (AiG), "What About Carl Baugh?",
No webpage found at provided URL: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm (posted off-site, but I personally confirmed its authenticity directly with AiG):
quote:
Muddying the water?
It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.
Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.
We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like Carl Baugh, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!
Evangelical Christian and then-Ph.D. candidate in geology, Steven Schimmrich, "Kenneth Ham and the Dinosaurs" (
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/schimmrich/ham.html):
quote:
'Why should I care?'
If you're not a Christian, you should care because creationists are trying to get this type of garbage taught in public schools as "science." This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, science and teaching it as such is the equivalent of teaching astrology in astronomy classes or crystal healing in geology classes. If you care about the education of our children, then you should care about this issue.
If you are a Christian, you should care because this stuff is being taught in Christian schools (students from Judah Christian School in Champaign, Illinois were taken to the Answers in Genesis seminar). What happens when these children learn more about science and find out that they were lied to - that dinosaurs and man could never have coexisted, that there is abundant evidence for an old earth and no evidence whatsoever for a young one, and that the fossil record does not support a Biblical flood model? Will they conclude that they were lied to about other things as well? Lied to about Jesus Christ and the resurrection?
I think Christians should be scrupulously honest and above reproach when they are engaged in scholarly pursuits such as science. Instead they have a reputation for being a bunch of loons. It harms the cause of Christ.
While a post-graduate student at Calvin College, Schimmrich was very active on-line and ran the Science & Christianity mailing list (SCICHR) which hosted several excellent essays which I list here:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/schimmrich/index.html#SCICHR_ESSAYS.
Since graduating he has turned his attention more towards starting his career and raising his family. I obtained his permission to repost a number of his pages here:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/schimmrich/index.html
It was through SCICHR that I read (PhD Physics) Dr. Allan Harvey's essays:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings.htm. On my quotes page I quote from his "Science and Christian Apologetics" (
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/apologetics.html), which echoes your concern over the additional obstacles creationism places in the way of potential converts:
quote:
Maybe I can start by saying I wish this talk wasn’t necessary. I think science has become a bigger apologetic problem than it should be, and, I hate to say, a lot of that is our fault as the church. Not because we don’t know enough science (though that can be a problem, too), but because we’ve got some basic misunderstandings about how science and nature fit into Christian theology. So I’m not going to talk much about science, I’m going to talk about what I think are the real sources of our problems. If we can get those things straight, I think most of the apologetic problems go away.
I want to start with an observation about apologetics in general. When people say they reject Christianity, a lot of the time what they’re really rejecting is something else. Maybe they’re rejecting televangelists, or some hypocrisy they saw in their parents or their parents’ church, maybe they’re rejecting the politics of the Christian Coalition, or some opinion about science that they think is an essential part of the faith. I think an important part of apologetics is to recognize these misconceptions and clear them out of the way so people can consider the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ. There may be things they’ll reject there (Paul said the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing), but at least then you’re dealing with the real issues and not these distractions.
I have an example of this from my own experience. When I was working on my Ph.D., I shared a lab with a man from Taiwan named Albert. One day there was an evangelist making noise on campus, and Albert asked me a question out of the blue: “How can you be a Christian and believe all that Creationism stuff?” I managed to mumble something about how “that stuff” wasn’t what Christianity was all about. But Albert’s question had illustrated the problems we have with science and apologetics.
Albert knew that the claims of so-called “creation science” about the Earth being only 6000 years old and so forth were ridiculous, like saying the Earth was flat. Can’t blame him for not wanting to be associated with that nonsense. But what’s worse is that that was the first thing that came to Albert’s mind about Christianity. Not the death and resurrection of Jesus. Not even the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments. The anti-science noise had drowned out the Gospel so all Albert had heard was a false Gospel, one that was centered in a particular interpretation of Genesis rather than being centered in Christ. [Gal. 1:6-9]
. . .
My concern is what can we do to correct the misconceptions that people have (both people like Albert and some Christians) that the findings of science (geology, astronomy, biological sciences [including evolution]) are incompatible with Christianity, that embracing Jesus means rejecting science. And it’s a serious problem. It’s serious because there are people like Albert out there who know science, and we put stumbling blocks in the way of them even considering Jesus. You hear missionaries talk about unreached people groups; here’s a group of people that aren’t hearing the Gospel because they can’t get past the huge credibility barrier put up by the things some Christians say about science.
But it’s also serious because of its effects on Christians, and I’m especially worried about children. If we teach our children that they have to choose between science and faith, we're setting them up for a fall. Because some of them are going to grow up and study the real world God made and learn that what the church has told them about science is false. If we’ve taught them that the Gospel or the truth of the Bible depends on those things, then its like the house built on sand, their foundation gets washed away, and their faith may go with it. I think Jesus had some words about those who set people up to stumble on issues like this: [Luke 17:1-2] “Stumbling blocks are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.”
So, how do we give our children a foundation that won’t crumble the first time they take a college science class, and how do we keep science from being a stumbling block to people like Albert? I’ve thought about these things a lot, and I’ve decided that at the root of our problems are two fundamental mistakes, and both of them involve taking our human philosophy and letting it dictate to God what he can and can’t do. I hope you’d all agree that dictating to God isn’t a good idea.
Harvey also writes about "God of the Gaps" theology, something which I have found to be very prevalent in "creation science" and practically fundamental to "intelligent design".
I hope that some of this can be of use.
™ Version 4.2