Where is the Next Generation of Creation Scientists?

Poor creationists. They don’t seem very good at reproducing themselves

Naturalis Historia

Where is the next generation of creation scientists?   I don’t mean the next generation of believers in creation science but the next generation of young-earth experts who will continue the legacy of Morris, Austin, Humphreys, Woodmorappe, Wood, Bergman, Oard, Baumgardner, etc… I have to believe that this has to be a question that many of the first-generation creation scientists have pondered over the past two decades.

You might wonder, how is a new creation scientist generated?  By their own admission admission, the best route to producing a creation scientist is to capture them early, very early.   By using young-earth curricula in school and church, taking kids to the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter it is believed that training up a child in the way they will go go will yield adults that have the “correct” worldview.

That might create another Ken Ham and there are dozens of Ken Ham wannabes…

View original post 1,757 more words

4 thoughts on “Where is the Next Generation of Creation Scientists?

  1. wkdawson

    Interesting. I didn’t know Ken Ham was merely a media artist. Of course, I always wondered where he had such gull to talk the way he does, as a real scientist would want to be quadruple-sure (or more) before ever talking with that sort of unflinching confidence. It explains why people who are the most ignorant but talk with the greatest confidence seem to get all the breaks. Honesty and humility are not the things people of power want to hear.


    1. wkdawson

      It is a good commentary. However, I noticed three or four minor mishaps in the text — not that I don’t find frustrating blunders in my own publications years after I have written the text. Nevertheless, oddly, even the last remark in this work “Very little has [?] during the intervening years.” introduced a new one (i.e., the [?]).

      One thing he should also fix in the main text is
      But what happens when all that really exists are flourishes of rhetoric _with_ include appeals to the products of a past generation of creation scientists for legitimacy?
      *with -> which



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s