Is creationism winning in Turkey & Korea?

So how do you explain two of the main creation organisations Creation Ministries and Answers in Genesis being made in Australia not USA.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

The epidemic may have spread, but the USA was still Patient Zero.

Damn those Alabama fundies.

I think every country with major Christian influence has made some attempt at creation science. Even in the more secular Netherlands there are still schools that teach orthodox creationism. Two of my cousins are enrolled in one. I looked into their books once. It has been a year, so I can't be sure, but I seem to remember it reffered to evolution as stating a bacteria > plant > animal order. At least it was very preachy and got facts wrong.Also, before evolution was established, this type of teaching was mostly the norm, and to some extend it simply survives.The USA may have made the most attempts to pass it off as science, or as ID, and there has been major courtroom warfare about it.In the Netherlands special education schools(read: religious schools) were established as legal in 1917 in a notable deal with the opposition, which resulted in this and full voting rights for women. This has allowed these schools to pretty much teach about creationism what they please to some extent for almost 100 years now. Although religous parties have been dwindling throughout the decades, and someday a bold secular majority may decide to axe it, although only time will tell.Not certain how well-known dutch politics are here, but it's mostly a jigsaw puzzle of many parties right now, including 3 Christian ones.

You can't just blame Alabama. Henry Morris was from Texas.

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.

Very true. Similarly, I've heard British fundies reciting things that only make sense in the context of having a First Amendment, and not at all in a country in which Christianity is the official religion.You can see the same thing with the Freeman-On-The-Land movement: the magic words they recite to make their debts vanish are based on misunderstandings of American law, but they don't know it.

Being a Christian does not imply holding Creationist beliefs.I would imagine that British fundies have plenty of opportunity to feel that their viewpoint is suppressed in the UK. While it is true that the state religion is Christian, the state religion does not include fundamentalist beliefs such as a belief that the account of Creation or the Flood as described in Genesis is either the literal truth or the Bible is a lie. In fact it is highly likely that the population of the UK is as highly adverse to funding a non secular science education as they would be if they did have a first amendment.Nobody wants crap nonsense taught as science to school aged children except Creationists.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Also Ken Ham is to blame for moving to America and bringing Answers in Genesis with him.

Your inability to understand very simple things is impressive even for a creationist. Did it take practice, or were you born that way?

I understand. Creation was imported from USA. Dont be so uptight.

Well done.

A fool and his money are soon parted. If you want to make a buck, go where the fools have money.

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".

I just meant that Ken Ham helped popularize creation in America, with Answers in Genesis. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.