Is creationism winning in Turkey & Korea?

Oh no, not at all. In fact, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), who literally wrote the book of "creation science", was originally based in Southern California east of San Diego (just down the street from a stone carver who, I would assume, gave them good rates on millstones).Obviously, "creation science" is a purely American product, the factors of whose creation do include American fundamentalist sects (your reference to Alabama), but also the history of the anti-evolution movement in the USA from the 1920's on, and the US court system that they need to circumvent and the US public they need to deceive.But there's no reason to assume that it nor the fundamentalist sects would remain isolated to the USA. Aggressive missionary work ensures that that won't be the case. The ICR's monthly newsletter, Acts & Facts, would always carry stories of their missionary efforts in several other countries to spread their "gospel" of "creation science."Plus, there are also Islamic creationists. Not of the same school as the ICR, I would assume, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have plagarized^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hresearched something from the ICR.

Just a follow-up to my post: Huffington Post posted on 14 Jun 2012 the article, Creationists In South Korea Force Removal Of Evolution From High-School Textbooks. In that article:

quote:

---

According to Nature.com, a group called the Society for Textbook Revise mounted an effective petition drive and is claiming credit for the removal of the evolution "error" from student's textbooks in order to "correct" their understanding of the world.
. . .

​

According to Newser, the Society For Textbook Revise was set up in the 1980s by the US Institute for Creation Research when Christianity spread across South Korea.

---

Yet again, "creation science" is a purely American product, born uniquely out of the religious, political, and judicial environment of the USA. From there it was exported to other countries.If you want to try to make a case about fundamentalist Christian and creationist movements in other countries, then you also need to provide information about their formation and developmental histories.

Again, I wrote: How did Australian fundamentalism form and develop? Was it, like their rabbits and cane toads, imported from abroad to run rampant creating yet another Australian ecological disaster? Or is it a case of convergent evolvution independent of USA fundamentalism? And independently of that, is their creationism also a case of convergent evolution independent of USA "creation science" or was it imported from the USA?The thing with convergent evolution is that it is the result of the same kinds of environments and selective pressures being applied to different lineages. In the USA, "creation science", with its fundamental deception of claiming that it's not based on religion but based purely on scientific evidence, was created in direct response to the First Amendment's ban on promoting religious dogma in the public schools. As far as I know, the USA is fairly unique in that regard. I do not think that that same ban to teaching religious dogma exists in Australia. It is very doubtful that Australian creationism could have evolved convergently in response to an environment and legal pressures that simply do not exist. Hence the evidence points to Australian creationism having been imported and transplanted from a foreign land, namely the USA.

To blame for what? While it is possible that he could have helped in importing USA-style "creation science" into Australia (even though I don't know for a fact whether that is true, it could be possible), his having moved subsequently to the USA has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the origins question of how "creation science" came into being in Australia.Now, shortly after his arrival at the ICR, it was observed that he had significantly raised the level of vitriol with which the ICR would lash out at their opponents. Ironically, the opponents towards whom most of that vitriol was directed were other creationists whose creationism wasn't quite pure enough for Ham and who failed to totally toe the ICR's theological party line. And in so doing, Ham also exposed the lie in the ICR's standard non-descript description of their "creation model", that it was "any idea involving creation", whereas in reality it is, was, and had always been a very specific and very narrowly-defined set of religious beliefs -- according to Henry Morris, the ICR dumped the vast majority of "any ideas involving creation" into their catch-all "evolution model".

Those were the "Back to Genesis" seminars, which Ken Ham developed and operated for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR, the original creators of "creation science") when he came to the USA to work for the ICR in the late 1980's. He brought to the ICR a stronger evangelical spirit (via "Back to Genesis") and greater and more publically apparent intolerance of other creationists (as already noted here). It wasn't until he left the ICR in 1994 that he founded Answers in Genesis-USA.But, yet again, Ken Ham's coming to America long after the fact has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of creationism in Australia; for all appearances, you seem to be trying to change the subject from that question. However, in the history of Answers in Genesis on Wikipedia, they note that it was founded in 1980 by two Australian creationist organizations, both of which were formed in the late 1970's, nearly a decade after the creation of "creation science" by the ICR. The history then goes into the legal battles between the Australian and US branches.BTW, to bring us back on topic, there's this statement in the history of the ICR:

quote:

---

In 1985, the ICR helped Turkey’s education minister Vehbi Dinerler, introduce creationism in Turkish high schools.

---

My emphasis added: Steve Rauch, from Glenn R. Morton's The Effect of Scientific Error in Christian Apologetics: Casualties in the Creation-Evolution debate (my emphasis added):

quote:

---

About a year and a half ago, I was a firm special creationist. I am now a believer in evolution; not even sure if God is required. In 1995, Glenn Morton wrote to Stephen Jones about Stephen's provisional acceptance of common descent (as quoted by SJ Sunday, January 11, 1998 5:16 PM), "I know exactly how difficult a paradigm shift like that is." Well, let me tell you, the shift is absolutely devastating. I'm still struggling with all this. I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.

---

And so, Ken Ham sends forth a new generation of cannon fodder.Edited by dwise1, : My emphasis added