One netfriend:

I am not a Creation Scientist. However, I have read articles written by quite a number of them and watched videos made by the Creationism movement.

Among present-day Scientific Creationists there are some who have three Ph.D’s in up to three scientific disciplines.

You can say 1a) “There is no God!” or 1b) “God created and then left the creation to develop by chance mutations over millions of years.”

OR …. You can say, 2. “God through His omnipotent powers created the Universe and living organisms in it and is still working in it today.”

The written records or oral records later written down by ancient humans date back to about 10 thousand years at the most. I may be wrong here, but my knowledge is that the Bible is the only record of great length – of 4 000 years to the time of Jesus Christ who is the central Person of not only the New Testament, but the Old Testament as well. He divides history into two halves – ie Before Christ (B.C.) and After Christ (A.D. – in the year of our Lord).

While Creationists work from those dates, in their own scientific disciplines (in which they can be researching and solving probems of living in today’s world,) they are seeking information to prove that micro-macro evolution “goo-to-you-via-the-zoo” did not happen and could not happen.

If in their articles they quote verses of scripture (KJV or any other translation) there in no law in the land which says they can’t do that.

The year, 2009, will be the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s book – ie in four years’ time. I would hope that during that period the Creationists have as much freedom in presenting their research findings with similar amounts of public moneys that have enabled Evolutionists to indoctrinate children through schools and adults through the media in the post-war years.

~~~

Mark responded:

Read The “Doctors” Of The Institutionalized Credulous Retards http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/icr-deg.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Dr.” Harold S. Slusher of the ICR claims to have an honorary D.Sc. from Indiana Christian University and a Ph.D. from COLUMBIA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY. Robert J. Schadewald recently discovered that Indiana Christian University is a Bible College with only a 1/2 man graduate science department, and Columbia Pacific University is nonaccredited.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Furthermore …. from http://www.dca.ca.gov/press_releases/2000113.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

COLUMBIA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY ORDERED TO CLOSE PERMANENTLY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 13, 2000

SACRAMENTO-The Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education today announced that a final judgment has been issued by Marin County Superior Court, ordering Columbia Pacific University (CPU) of Novato to permanently cease operations and pay refunds to all students who have attended since June 25, 1997. CPU is a private institution offering distance-learning degree programs from the bachelor’s through the doctorate level, and has been operating without required state approval since that date.

“When an institution issues a degree to a student who has not received adequate training, knowledge, and skill, the student, employers, and the general public are harmed,” said bureau Chief Michael Abbott. “Private postsecondary institutions are regulated by the state in order to help assure students, employers, and the public that the institutions meet the standards established by law. Before a student enrolls in an institution, and before an employer relies on a degree listed in a resume, he or she should check to assure that the institution subject to the bureau’s jurisdiction holds an approval from the bureau.”

The Marin County Superior Court specifically ordered that CPU issue full refunds to all students requesting such refunds who attended CPU on or after June 25, 1997. CPU must send a written notice to all affected students, and must issue the refunds within 30 days of its receipt of a student’s refund request. The bureau estimates that hundreds of students will be eligible for a refund. Students should contact CPU to request a refund. But if they have submitted the request and do not receive their refund within the 30-day period, they may file a complaint with the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. Students may also file a complaint if there is a dispute over the amount owed. In addition, students with CPU degrees granted on or after June 25, 1997 that were used for licensing examination eligibility should contact their licensing authority with questions about the validity of their license. Most licensing boards require that exam-takers have degrees from state approved schools. However, students who received degrees or credentials from CPU prior to June 25, 1997 should not be affected as the school had legal approval to operate until that date.

Private postsecondary and vocational schools are regulated by the bureau, which approves schools to operate in California. The bureau’s predecessor agency, the Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (see timeframe attached), conducted a qualitative review and assessment of CPU’s degree-granting programs and denied its application for licensure. The council’s denial was upheld by an independent administrative law judge on June 10, 1997. Among other items, the judge found that CPU:

a.. awarded excessive credit for prior experiential learning to many students;

b.. failed to employ duly qualified faculty; and c.. failed to meet various requirements for issuing Ph.D. degrees.

Since the Council’s adoption of the administrative law judge’s decision, CPU has continued to operate without legal approval. The Marin County Superior Court preliminarily enjoined CPU from operations in California, finding it did not have the legally required approval from the bureau. In March 1999, the Alameda Superior Court denied CPU’s request that the court overturn the Council’s adoption of the 1997 decision denying CPU’s application for approval to operate, but CPU has appealed that decision. CPU also appealed the Marin County Superior Court’s preliminary injunction, and on the day set for trial on the permanent injunction in May 1999, CPU filed for bankruptcy. However, CPU has since withdrawn its petition for bankruptcy.

Students or former students may contact CPU directly with their refund requests at 105 Digital Drive, Novato, CA 94949, (415) 884-7878. Students who do not receive timely refunds, dispute the amount, or have other issues they are unable to resolve directly with CPU, should write to the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education at 1027 10th Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814-3517, call them at (916) 445-3427, or send faxes to (916) 323-6571. Complaint forms can also be found on the bureau’s web site at http://www.bppve.ca.gov.

California currently has more than 2,000 private postsecondary schools under the bureau’s jurisdiction. The bureau is a part of the Department of Consumer Affairs, California’s consumer advocate in state government, which establishes standards of competency for more than 200 professions/occupations and administers the regulatory functions of licensing, examination and enforcement for those professions. To check on the approval status of a private postsecondary school under the bureau’s jurisdiction, please call or fax the bureau at the numbers listed above.

###

Note to reporters: Timeframe of events included below.

TIMEFRAME OF EVENTS: December 1999

a.. The initial Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act of 1989 went into effect in 1991. Columbia Pacific University was given “grandfather” status as an approved, degree-granting institution. b.. CPU subsequently submitted its first application for approval to the Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, the predecessor agency of the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. c.. After a comprehensive review and assessment, the council denied CPU’s application on numerous grounds on December 15, 1996. CPU appealed that denial. During the pendency of the appeal, CPU was legally permitted to continue its operations d.. Following an evidentiary administrative hearing, an independent administrative law judge upheld the council’s denial. A final decision and order of denial was issued by the council on or about June 25, 1997. e.. CPU petitioned the Alameda County Superior Court for a writ of mandamus vacating the council’s order and decision denying CPU approval to operate. CPU also sought a temporary stay of the council’s decision pending the outcome of the writ petition. f.. The court denied CPU’s request for a stay of the council’s decision. Therefore, as of June 25, 1997, CPU has not possessed an approval to operate as a postsecondary institution in the state of California. CPU did not further pursue its writ action at that time, but continued to operate. g.. In late 1997 the council initiated a civil action in Marin County Superior Court to enjoin CPU’s illegal operations. h.. On January 1, 1998, the bureau succeeded to all the rights and powers of the council. The bureau continued to pursue the action against CPU initiated by the council. i.. On February 10, 1998, the bureau’s motion for a preliminary injunction against CPU was denied by the Marin Superior Court on procedural grounds. The bureau appealed that denial. j.. On October 1, 1998, the First Appellate District reversed the trial court’s denial of the bureau’s motion for a preliminary injunction. CPU then petitioned the California Supreme Court for review of the appellate court decision. k.. On December 16, 1998, the California Supreme Court denied CPU’s petition for review. Therefore, the case was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the bureau’s motion. l.. On January 26, 1999, the bureau’s motion for a preliminary injunction was reconsidered and granted. The case was set for trial in May 1999. CPU appealed that decision. As a result of the Marin County Superior Court’s decision at the trial, that appeal is moot. m.. Following the California Supreme Court’s denial of CPU’s petition for review in the Marin County action, CPU renewed its writ action in Alameda Superior Court. n.. The Alameda County Superior Court denied CPU’s request for a writ of mandamus. CPU appealed that decision, and the appeal is currently pending. o.. On the date of the trial in the injunction action, CPU served notice that it had filed bankruptcy the previous day. The Marin County Superior Court stayed the action. p.. The bureau sought, and on July 23, 1999, obtained, relief in bankruptcy court from the automatic stay of the injunction action. q.. The injunction action proceeded to trial on December 1 and 2, 1999, at the conclusion of which the judge issued her decision. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ken Smith added:

re: “Dr.” Harold S. Slusher of the ICR claims to have an honorary D.Sc. from Indiana Christian University and a Ph.D. from COLUMBIA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY. Robert J. Schadewald recently discovered that Indiana Christian University is a Bible College with only a 1/2 man graduate science department, and Columbia Pacific University is nonaccredited.

Ken wrote:

And, furthermore, his honorary D.Sc. was given for his work on creationism.

More from Ken:

Re: There are 11sites listed in this category.

I’d add the Australian Academy of Science “Statement on Creationism”:

http://www.science.org.ay/reports/creation.htm

There are also a number of anti-creationist books with articles by conservative Christians, and a number written entirely by conservative Christians pointing out the theological as well as scientific errors of creationists. I’ll try to put together a list and post it – I have a list but it’s out of date and recent books need to be added.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (John Rennie/Scientific American)

The Antiquity of Man (Mikey Brass)

The Descent of Man (Charles Darwin)

This copy of the book comes from Project Gutenberg

Evolution Resources (Kenneth Miller)

National Center for Science Education

“Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools”

No Answers in Genesis! (John Stear)

“Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution – ignorance is”

On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection (Charles Darwin)

This copy of the book comes from Project Gutenberg

The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (Steve Wells)

One form of religious bigotry is fundamentalism, or a belief in the inerrancy of the literal Bible. This site points out the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible and also highlights the parts that the true believers would rather not talk about.

The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Talkdesign.org

Understanding Evolution

from http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight/creationism1.htm

~~~

Still more from Ken:

(In response to >This is the thing. It is assumed that a constant rate of decay took place (which is how they get those dates), with nothing being affected by cataclysmic changes, yet the evolutionists are forced to admit that cataclysmic changes have occurred on our planet. A contradiction.

If you assume a constant rate of decay, then of course it will appear to be a very old date. But it isn’t logical to assume that and it isn’t logical to assume that nothing can change the rate of decay at a given time, for a certain amount of time, during an event.):

Ken:

It always amuses me that creationists keep bringing up these ideas that the laws of physics can change. But when it comes to their daily lives they, along with the rest of us, assume that the laws of physics don’t change.

Or if a light doesn’t come on when he presses the switch, does Pastor Dave immediately assume that his God has changed the laws of electricity? I suspect – though given the creationist mind my suspicion could be quite wrong – that he might think the bulb was blown, or a fuse had blown, or the power supply failed, or … or anything in the world, except that God had changed the laws He set up by which the universe runs.

~~~

‘there is plenty of evidence that the rate of

decay can change.’

Ken wrote:

Pastor [ ],

You have two options:

1. You can provide us with the evidence for this statement – scientific evidence, not a quotation from some creationist source;

2. You can be assumed to “bear false witness about your neighbour”.

Which one do you choose?