The link here, of a non-Creationist going on about a science fair he recently visited of Creationist-taught kids and their projects, irked me a skosh. I am a former atheist, but still tend to look at most everything with a very skeptical eye — particularly those who are overly assumptive and tend to make absolute statements without any backup than just “common knowledge,” despite the fact that common knowledge says both that silence is golden and the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
I am not much of a Creationist — I believe portions of the bible (not all of it by any means) was largely written in the language of the commoner, that is, akin to a science professor explaining to tribal peoples lacking in advanced academia about the nature of the sky and why it is blue by talking about sand falling through a piece of cloth. The atmosphere is not literally a giant cloth that filters literal sand. One of my former pastors relayed it best when trying to describe what baptism is, in pointing to a painting on the wall asking, “What is that?” “It’s a eagle.” “No, it is a painting of an eagle. Baptism is just a picture that represents to others that you trust Jesus. It doesn’t mean that you actually do. You can’t rely on your baptism to get to heaven, just as you can’t rely on a painting of an eagle to fly away.”
A common thing among the overly assumptive, as this person demonstrates, is to just say that something is without giving one lick of evidence while at the same time criticizing others for doing precisely that — having no evidence and purely based on assumption. For example:
The projects all used classic high school science language: Start with a hypothesis, move on to testing, and then draw a conclusion. The problem was that much of the science was backwards. In good science, you start with a piece of evidence and try to find a truth. With creationist science, you start with a truth (the Bible), and try to find the evidence.
Being fairly unfamiliar with creationist science (having written the article as someone who did not presume to be a creationist scientist) this is the position the writer immediately takes, without bothering to check to see whether or not he is right, relying solely upon whim as evidence — precisely the criticism he is making.
They stood around the suburban mall, in the prime of the most awkward years of their life, being forced to preach blather.
This could be said for anything, including traditional science fairs. Singling out creationism science fairs as blather-preachers is an attack against one’s own version of a science fair — calling into question whether judges (blather verifiers) can actually be capable of discerning truth. In the context of a creationism science fair, the winner is for the best creationism science project. A creationism science fair project about how the oceanic currents are amassing pollution into a giant island of trash off the remote coast of California would not win, being largely-if-not-wholly off topic. The writer of the article seems disgusted by the fair’s offerings by deliberately criticizing them for being largely-if-not-wholly off topic from his perspective of what he presumes to be truth (whereas perception of truth is defined by one’s personal gullibility that evidence is actually evidence).