The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Creationism versus Science (website)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
(Redirected from Creationism vs science)
Jump to: navigation, search

Creationism versus Science is the name of an anti-creationist website, which uses the internet domain[1] The site is a construct of Michael Wong and yet many of the issues raised appear to have been derived from the Talk.Origins Archive, which CreationWiki has refuted many times. Because of this redundancy, we will not fully reply to everything, but will give links to various pages throughout the CreationWiki.

'Creationism versus Science' Assertions

Young earth Creationism

Six day creationism is listed under the Arguments section of the Creationism versus Science website. [2]

The Creationism versus Science website claims that young earth creationists are "very powerful in America because they are so well funded." However, this is in direct contradiction to reality; YEC is perhaps the most attacked religion in America, and the funds come not from the government but from YEC citizens. It also states that Christian fundamentalists "are so politically aggressive and incredibly insensitive to other peoples' feelings that they can't figure out they're hurting anyone or infringing upon their rights until you scream it in their faces". This statement is almost laughable; in fact, it is ironic. It is actually the areligious who are "politically aggressive and insensitive to other's feelings", as observed in public schools and courtrooms, where YEC is attacked as pseudoscience. YEC's are actually more sensitive to others' feelings than are atheists; the difference is that Christians are more concerned with the moral state of the country and the return to our basic beliefs than about granting everyone their every desire and making them mindlessly happy. For this reason, however, they are labelled as "hatemongers" by Michael Wong, who demonstrates this very characteristic of himself in almost all of his writings.

Please take note that at no time in this series of articles does Mr. Wong cite any reference.


Mr. Wong has a series of articles on probability, which attack the creationist assertion that evolution is improbable. He says that the "fine tuning argument" is invalidated because even if Earth's conditions were different, life could have arisen in a different manner. However, he provides absolutely no evidence for this, and ignores the fact that there is no life on any of the other planets, which falsifies his argument.

Biblical morality

The issue of Biblical morality has been used by the Creationism versus Science to attack the validity of the Bible.[3]. It is claimed that the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites at God's command was "cruelty", because they also slew all the women and children. However, this is but an example of God's justice; no sin can stand before Him, not even that of children. It also claims that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and Noah's flood were acts of genocide; this is an outrageous accusation. Genocide, as defined by the dictionary, is: "The systematic, planned annihilation of a racial, political, or cultural group." Obviously, these acts of judgement had nothing to do with the peoples' race or ethnicity; it was for the wicked sins of the people that God had to bring the judgements about. God was even prepared to spare Sodom and Gomorrah for "the sake of ten righteous", but none were found except for Abraham's nephew, Lot. Mr. Wong rabidly attacks OT "violence", showing complete ignorance of Ancient Near Eastern culture and laws. His attacks even show ignorance of basic survival; the Hebrews were living amongst extremely powerful nations that posed a great threat to them, therefore it was necessary to wipe them out in order for them to survive. It is ironic that evolutionists will often go to great lengths to support evolution using "survival of the fittest," and yet attack the Bible when it describes the need for this in the case of the ancient Hebrews.

The follow is a response to its assertions.

Other Essays

Mr. Wong has a series of essays on other various subjects, such as the Intelligent Design theory, American fundamentalism, and Hitler's religion.

Debating Tips

Main Article: Anticreationist debate tactics

The Creationism versus Science website devotes a large section of the website to providing debating tips against creationists. [4]. This suggests a great concern with changing the minds of creationists, and illustrates the true motive of the website - attacking creationism. Furthermore, creationists are inaccurately classified into three categories: the "garden-variety scientifically ignorant religious fanatic", the one who has been "swayed" by "religious propaganda" (these, he claims, will be the easiest ones to "convert"), and the third kind, which he claims "have a large 'bag of tricks' which they can use against you". The "garden variety" he is talking about are mostly ministers and Christian parents. The site complains that this type will try to convert you rather than argue scientifically. Of course, this is his argument from ignorance. The most important thing is to convert, to bring to salvation. Generally, the "garden variety" usually has had more training in theology, and has had a mostly basic training in the scientific areas. The second type, those "swayed", are usually those who are superficial Christians, who go to church and may read the Bible, but don't understand it and have never been serious about their faith. These, of course, are the type which the Apostle Paul talks about, who are "tossed to and fro" by doctrines. They have no firm ground in God's Word, therefore they will be the easiest to sway with evolution. The third type are those who have had an in-depth scientific training, such as Ken Ham and Henry Morris. The "bag of tricks" they use is scientific arguments. The authors of the Creationism versus Science website are obviously displeased to see such arguments from creationist viewpoints, so it goes to great lengths to convince the lay people that such creationists should not be trusted and should be avoided for fear of conversion.

See also