Sitia Non Grata

We will not provide any direct links to blogs run by and for anti-science, pseudoscience-inventing, religious nutters or hate-mongering bigots because to do so would be to unwillingly add to the "authority" of such nonsense. However, we will provide links for anyone interested in googling for such sites.

Search engines, like computers, are blind to the value of content on websites and rank highly those sites that are linked to by other sites. To provide a url to creationist, or any other nonsense, is to inadvertantly appear to be giving that site a vote of confidence.

We suggest that any evolutionist or liberal thinker who agrees with this policy do likewise. It's a start.

Conversely, we will provide urls for sites that, by virtue of supporting truth or being well written, deserve a vote of confidence.

The sites that do not deserve any implicit vote of confidence can be googled at:
Answers in Genesis, AiG : Center for Science and Culture : Creation Museum : Discovery Institute :

Asses in Genesis

The following deceptive advertizing is from the donation-requesting Answers in Genesis website, which offers an array of misleading YEC pseudoscience for dummies.

"Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending)ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and toproclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly onproviding answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is themost-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop abiblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, andits bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe)..

AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must beinterpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolutionand creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth,have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies inhow we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of theuniverse”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world.When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.

For an elaboration of AiG’s presuppositional thrust check out our Q&Apage—for example, learn how the Bible offers the best explanation of the world’sgeology, anthropology, and cosmogony."

AiG complains that Genesis is the most attacked book of the Bible. Why is this?

Since God supposedly Created the Universe and Life on Earth, then God should be aware of all facts about the natural world that He supposedly Created. Further, if we are to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then ALL metaphysics in the Bible SHOULD be accurate. (AiG actually claims that this is the case.) Now, since all metaphysics in the Bible is DISPROVEN, then the Bible is the Word of a Science Ignorant Deity, or is not the Word of God at all, or God never existed but is merely the invention of science-ignorant men. Of course Genesis is the most attacked book of the Bible, its creation myth is utterly discredited.

Jesus preached nothing (of which I am aware) about the origin of the universe, creation myths, or the age of the Earth, so YEC nonsense and creationist inventions have nothing to contribute to proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, I very much doubt that many Biblical literalists have noticed this discrepancy because they insist that the entire packages is true or nothing is true. (Some do see the illogic and become agnostic or atheist.)

Creationists might wish that biological evolution were bankrupt so that they could justifiably believe that God would have Specially Created ignorance-prone bigots.

Facts do speak for themselves and scientific facts should not be misinterpreted by biased, under-educated, religious fanatics who seek to deny and distort. Any unbiased individual wishing to learn the most accurate interpretation of facts about geology, anthropology, or cosmogeny would be well advised to believe nothing on the AiG site or in the Creation Museum.

I have nothing against Australia, though I do think that America should send Ken Ham back. America has quite enough Biblical literalists of its own without importing them. Appearances suggest that Australia has no wish for the return of its egregious native. "No Answers in Genesis" is, after all, an Australian website.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...