Table of Contents:

Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):

  1. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.

  2. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.

  3. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

"We never knew whom we were fighting and knowing your enemy is the first rule of war."
(Kharn the Undying in Prelude to Axanar, on YouTube)

We keep hearing the Religious Right (or "Conservative Christians" or whatever they're calling themselves this week) speak of the on-going "culture wars" that they're waging against the rest of society. On the front fighting against evolution, we have the creationists of both the young-earth "creation science" and of the "intelligent design" varieties (though the latter has largely been adopted as a smokescreen for the former).

The problem for these creationist "culture warriors" is that they are violating that first rule of war: they do not know their enemy. In more than three decades, I do not recall ever seeing a creationist actually address or attack evolution itself. Rather, they would always attack their "evolution model", a confused amalgamated mess created by their misunderstanding and their misrepresentations of evolution and of the rest of science. Much of their confusion appears to be from their ignorance of science -- eg, their heavy reliance on "common sense" "folk science" which is almost invariably wrong -- , but sadly much of it has been willfully self-induced. They waste all their efforts on battling strawmen of their own creation. They truly do not know their enemy.

Even worse for them, they also violate Sun Tzu's second rule of knowing yourself. They use claims that they do not understand which are supposedly based on scientific principles that they do not understand. Thus they are unable to explain or to discuss or to defend their own claims, let alone evaluate them for themselves. They also have no knowledge of the history of their claims. Believing that their claims are "new scientific findings" and that no "evolutionist" has ever been able to respond to them, they are unaware that almost all their claims are decades old and were soundly refuted almost immediately (ie, decades ago). I have personally witnessed how devastating it is for young over-confident creationists to suddenly learn the harsh truth about their claims -- creationist Dr. Sarfati of Answers in Genesis described it thus: "It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons." They truly do not even know themselves.

The result of their ignorance of their enemy and of themselves is that they cannot win an honest argument; they cannot even begin to participate in one. They may be able to bamboozle themselves and an opponent who is just as ignorant of evolution and science as they are, but they have no chance against a knowledgeable opponent. And since they have been taught to believe that their faith depends on their claims being true, many lose their faith -- a large number of opponents to "creation science" used to be creationists themselves. Those losses include upwards of 80% (according to youth ministers) of the children who had been raised on "creation science", though the effects of other aspects of their theology also play a role. Many creationists (usually the adults who are better at avoiding the truth) do not lose their faith as a result of learning the truth, but instead have to turn to dishonest tactics, including deliberate lies and deception. As a result, "creation science" has damaged the public image of Christians and of Christianity to the point of giving non-Christians very good reasons to reject Christianity and to find Christians to be untrustworthy hypocrites prone to lying (sorry, but that is what their Christian witnessing amounts to).

"Creation science" has even accomplished something through its faulty logic that no anti-God atheist ever could: it has succeeded in disproving the existence of God. Many creationists insist that if their claims are not true, then God doesn't exist. Well, their claims are not true. That faulty argumentation accounts for most of the creationists who lose their faith and it misleads the public into falsely believing that science and evolution disprove God.

Creationists created this situation. Christians need to correct it. Failure to do so will prove disasterous for them and for their religion.

"We know that ignorance doesn't work, because we've already tried it!"
(The Governor of Mississippi explaining why he was campaigning so hard for education reform in his state, quoted from memory from NPR circa 1990)

"I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed."
(Scott Rauch, a former young-earth creationist)

Contact Information:

The contact information links on all my creation/evolution pages link to here. That is because I have something that you need to read before you decide to send me a hate email.

Far too often in the past, with sickening regularity, I have received extremely angry emails from creationists ranting against my site, yet no offense that they named ever had anything at all to do with my site nor with my frequently-stated position. They were flaming me (and sounded like they would have literally set me ablaze if they could physically get to me and a wood pile) for what they imagined I might have written, rather than for what I had actually written. To place it in the wording of the Matthew 7:20 Test, their actions are the wicked fruit produced by their theology and by their fruits we do know them all too well, unfortunately for decent folk.

If you email me regarding my site, please address what's actually there rather than what you may wish to imagine to be there. Please include some kind of reference to which page you are referring to and where in that page, which will help me immensely in answering whatever question you may have, or in clarifying what you may have misunderstood.

And by the way, if you do email me, be sure to give it a meaningful subject line, one that will tell me that your email is not just spam. So if it looks like spam (ie, with subject lines such as "" (blank), "Hi", "Re:", "Re: your website", etc.), then your email will go straight to the round file (AKA "be deleted without being opened"). Mentioning that it's my creation/evolution website would help. Mentioning the specific page in the subject line would be even better (and absolutely necessary within the message itself).

And before I finally get around to giving you my email address, I ask that you continue reading this page first. I ask that so that you can become familiar with my position and what I am trying to do with these pages. With that knowledge, you can hopefully write a more informed email which would be far more constructive than you damning me for "crimes against God" which exist only in your own imagination.

So please think before you send. I always look forward to thoughtful discussion.

E-Mail Address: dwise1@aol.com.

The Short Form:

I know that I will seem to be beating a patch of grass where a decade before had lain a dead horse, but in the past it seemed that regardless of how much I'd try to explain what I'm saying, these run-by "good Christians" would still send me hateful emails accusing me of things that I never said. As a result, I have thought about and worked on this index page trying to express it as clearly and succinctly as I could. I apologize that it's still not perfect, but let's see how well it turned out.

To start out, I offer this outline as the most concise summary of my web site that I can offer. I will then offer a short summary which should explain this summary and follow that with some quotes that support my position, some of which are written by professional creationists and one that was even written by a saint.

So to summarize:

  • The primary purpose of this web site is to examine "creation science" claims and to examine the effects of creationists relying on such blatantly false claims to support their religion.

  • It has nothing whatsoever to do with God, nor with the Bible. Nothing I present on these pages could ever possibly be construed as attacking either God or the Bible.

  • It has nothing to do with Christianity, except for how creationists' actions do not square up with Christian doctrine. For that matter, it doesn't even have anything to do with creationists' particular narrow sect, though the observed immorality and misconduct of creationists cannot help but reflect upon their religion.

  • And it has nothing to do with the fact that I am an atheist and been one for over half a century.

  • It does have everything to do with the facts.

  • It does have everything to do with truthfulness and with honesty, both of which are sadly absent in "creation science".

  • It does have everything to do with the claims of "creation science" and of the young-earth creationism that it is derived from and with the actual science that is misunderstood or misrepresented or ignored in those claims.

  • It does have everything to do with the deceptive basis of creationist strategy, their "Two Model Approach".

  • It does have everything to do with the dishonest tactics employed routinely by creationists, such as quote-mining and creationist debates.

  • It does have everything to do with creationists persistently using the same old false claims even after learning the truth about those claims.

  • It does have everything to do with the repeated and unrepentant misconduct of creationists in direct violation of their religious beliefs.

  • It does have everything to do with how creationists use "creation science" to attack science education.

  • It does have everything to do with how creationists use "creation science" to proselytize, to deceive people into converting to their sect.

  • It does have everything to do with how creationists' false teachings give non-Christians more than ample reason to reject Christianity, including false proofs against God provided directly by creationists (eg, "an old earth disproves God", "evolution disproves God").

  • And it does have everything to do with what happens to their followers' faith when they learn how the creationists had lied to them.

  • And it does have everything to do with what happens when their own children, whom they had raised on "creation science", learn the truth -- youth ministers have placed the disaffection rate among children raised in the faith at upwards of 80% (ie, 4 out of 5 end up not only leaving the church, but leaving religion itself altogether).

  • And it has everything to do with what "creation science" does to its followers, especially the ones actively promoting "creation science".

    • Its claims are demonstrably false and have been refuted many times, including multiple times to the active creationists.
    • That means that the active creationists know better than to use those refuted claims and yet they continue to use them, which amounts to deliberately lying.
    • And when they knowingly use false claims to persuade their audience, then they are deceiving their audience.
    • And when their goal is to convert their audience, then they are trying to deceive their audience into converting.
    • Thus "creation science" promotes in its followers the characteristics of dishonesty, lying, and deceiving.

  • Most creationists are the passive followers who are normally kept insulated from the truth and so don't know any better, but the active creationists do know better.

    • And when those passive followers start to become active (eg, using "creation science" to proselytize to or argue with acquaintances), then they will encounter someone knowledgeable who will reveal the truth about their claims.
    • At that point, they will either learn to practice dishonesty and guile, or retreat from discussing creationism for fear of the truth, or realize that they had been lied to and end up leaving the faith.
    • And there should be absolutely no need for any of that!

  • BTW, a great many people who oppose "creation science" used to be creationists themselves. Until they learned the truth about it and about its claims.

So my web site contains and deals with:

If you disagree with my assessment of what I say and of what my site contains and does, then please send me a cordial email describing your disagreement to me and we can discuss the matter. Cordially.

Links to Site Contents

A Short Summary:

This web site reflects my views and opinions of creationism and "creation science". Before you attack me with the very Flames of Hell accusing me of things that I never ever said (as has happened far too many times), please take a little time to learn what I am actually saying.

And, yes, I know that this short summary doesn't look short. But I have seen and learned and discussed so much in the 35 years since 1981 that it fills nearly 100 files (not counting the archives of on-line discussions since 1988), so I've had to work hard to condense it down this much. Though of course if you'd much rather read all those 100 pages first ... :

The quotes in the next section are to show that my opinions are not unique to me. And that my warnings to creationists are also being given by professional creationists (in these examples, Drs. Sarfati and Batten from Answers in Genesis) and even by a saint. And that those professional creationists' warnings of the consequences of using false claims are the same as my own warnings, the only difference being that I recognize their other creationist claims as also being false, albeit perhaps not as obviously false as the ones they disparage.

Some Quotes Agreeing With What I Had Just Said

(including from a couple professional creationists and even from a saint)

De Genese ad litteram, Saint Augustine, fourth century
"It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

"And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement."

From Science at the Bar -- Causes for Concern by Larry Laudan, Science, Technology and Human Values 7, no. 41 (1982):16-19 (my emphasis added):
At various key points in the Opinion, Creationism is charged with being untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to make the interlinked claims that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that Creationism makes no empirical assertions whatever. This is surely false. Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters of fact.

Thus, as Judge Overton himself grants (apparently without seeing its implications), the creationists say that the earth is of very recent origin (say 6,000 to 20,000 years old); they argue that most of the geological features of the earth's surface are diluvial in character (i.e., products of the postulated worldwide Noachian deluge); they are committed to a large number of factual historical claims with which the Old Testament is replete; they assert the limited variability of species. They are committed to the view that, since animals and man were created at the same time, the human fossil record must be paleontologically co-extensive with the record of lower animals. It is fair to say that no one has shown how to reconcile such claims with the available evidence -- evidence which speaks persuasively to a long earth history, among other things.

In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests.

. . .

What counts is the epistemic status of Creationism, not the cognitive idiosyncrasies of the creationists. Because many of the theses of Creationism are testable, the mind set of creationists has no bearing in law or in fact on the merits of Creationism."

. . .

Rather than taking on the creationists obliquely in wholesale fashion by suggesting that what they are doing is "unscientific" tout court (which is doubly silly because few authors can even agree on what makes an activity scientific), we should confront their claims directly and in piecemeal fashion by asking what evidence and arguments can be marshaled for and against each of them. The core issue is not whether Creationism satisfies some undemanding and highly controversial definitions of what is scientific; the real question is whether the existing evidence provides stronger arguments for evolutionary theory than for Creationism. Once that question is settled, we will know what belongs in the classroom and what does not. Debating the scientific status of Creationism (especially when "science" is construed in such an unfortunate manner) is a red herring that diverts attention away from the issues that should concern us.

From More on Creationism by Larry Laudan, Science, Technology and Human Values 8, no. 42 (1983):36-38 (my emphasis added):
...the soundness of creation-science can and must be separated from all questions about the dogmatism of creationists. Once we make that rudimentary separation, we discover both (a) that creation-science is testable and falsifiable, and (b) that creation-science has been tested and falsified -- insofar as any theory can be said to be falsified. But, as I pointed out in the earlier essay, that damning indictment cannot be drawn so long as we confuse Creationism and creationists to such an extent that we take the creationists' mental intransigence to entail the immunity of creationist theory from empirical confrontation.

From Answers in Genesis Negative Feedback by Dr. Sarfati, Answers in Genesis website, Dec 2002:
As said in the original Don’t Use page, the harm is in using something which is not true, because the cause of the one who is "the truth" cannot be helped thereby. And your own recent experience reinforces something else we said—that using discredited arguments can backfire on the user. So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire, and return their focus to the Word of God not "evidence."

. . .

But more and more over the last few years, we have noticed tens of thousands of Christians excitedly using arguments over the Web, for instance, that are a plain embarrassment to those with scientific training. It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons. Further, and most importantly, it had escalated to the point where it was a hindrance to soul winning, since it gave the hearers a "legitimate" excuse to reject Christ.

And all we did at that point was to publish an "advice" article. The only time it became relevant to a specific creationist was when Kent [Hovind] himself decided to align himself publicly with a justification of false arguments. If it had been one or two minor points of disagreement, OK, but when it reinforces some of the most blatant fallacies, and even defends fraud, at what point does one NOT face one's responsibilities to the innocents being "slaughtered" in the belief that they are getting sound ammunition?

. . .

... , we actually do know people who say they almost gave the faith away when they found out that a particular argument was fallacious, and who say that finding Christians with the integrity to avoid falsehood, no matter what the cost, helped restore it. Also, in the last day or so, a leading atheistic anti-creationist organization said that while they disagreed with almost everything we stand for, they said we were "admirable" and "showed integrity" in trying to persuade other creationists not to use bad arguments. Who knows what sort of witness this could be? We know of many people, outside and inside of the church, who will no longer even look at or consider the authority of the Bible in Genesis, in its history, cosmology, etc. because of bad experiences with blatant pseudo-arguments applied by enthusiasts who had been fed creationist non-arguments.

From What About Carl Baugh? by Dr. Don Batten of Answers in Genesis, 1996:

Muddying the water?

It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.

Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.

We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like Carl Baugh, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!

By Robert Morphis from his web site, What Harm is done by Creation Science? (no longer exists):
The main downfall of Creation Science is that it is combined with a belief in YEC, and generally with a belief that YEC is required for salvation.

Because of this the evidence suggests that those who ascribe to Creation Science, esp. those who promote it, tend to:

  • Drive Christians to become atheists, agnostics and deists,
  • Become severely self-deluded and/or morally degenerate,
  • Engage in slander.

"We don't know why the evidence is the way it is but we believe in the literal understanding of Genesis." may be a tougher line to teach than "the worldly, atheistic scientists are all in a conspiracy / brainwashed / blinded by the devil" but if

  • you believe that a literal reading of Gen 1 is required
  • you wish to avoid bearing false witness and
  • you don't want to create atheists
I strongly recommend it.

. . .

It has been my experience in talking to agnostics and atheists that many were raised in fundamentalist churches and that the denial of the physical evidence that those churches engaged in was a significant reason for them leaving Christ.

By Scott Rauch, a former young-earth creationist:
"I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed."

A Short History of This Web Site:

As I said, I started studying "creation science" in 1981. After half a decade of study, I opened a CompuServe account in 1988 and started discussing "creation science" on-line in the Science & Religion section of the Religion Forum. My discussions led me to writing a few articles which I posted in that section's library. By 1997, CompuServe's massive changes in their interface had rendered their service completely unusable and I had to drop my account.

In 1997, America On-Line started offering website hosting services to its members. I started my own web site primarily in order to learn HTML, but also to repost my CompuServe library articles. I slowly added more content which I wrote in "my copious spare time" (an engineering inside joke, since we're kept so busy that we have no spare time), which meant during my lunch hour. I also wrote on other subjects which I segregated into a few different AOL screen names as a convenient organizing tool.

Then on 31 October 2008, AOL abruptly eliminated its web hosting service -- I think I got one or two weeks notice. I keep all my web content on my own computer and upload it to the web server, so I didn't lose any content, but I had nowhere to post it -- again, very little spare time in which to research my options. After about three years, I found a web hosting service and started putting my site back up on-line. Since I'll be reorganizing it, reverifying links, and making changes I was wanting to make, things will be fragmentary for a while, but we'll eventually get there.

Where My Name Came From

Just in case you want to follow Kent Hovind's example and pick a fight with me over "DWise1", read the following information first:

Over the years, most especially in on-line "creation/evolution" discussions, creationists have often engaged in personal attacks against me just because of my AOL screen name, "DWise1". In fact, one infamous professional creationist, Kent Hovind, went so far as to twice attempt (via email) to pick a fight with me over my screen name in order to avoid answering a very simple question about one of his claims, namely what his source was. I informed him that the story behind that name is really very mundane and has nothing to do with what he was railing against and I presented it to him.

So then why "DWise1"? Here is the story:

In every multi-user computer system, there are corporate policies for assigning user names. One common one is to append the first letter of the first name to the beginning of the first n letters of the last name (since there's always a limit to the length of the user name), adding numeric digits if the resultant user name has already been assigned. For example, one Dilbert comic depicted a "Brenda Utthead" complaining about the user name they had assigned her.

When I went to work at Hughes Aircraft in 1985, that was their policy, so my user name was "dwise". At the same time, they had bought some of the first Macs, non-networked floppy systems which we used to combine text and graphics in our presentation visuals. To identify my data floppy, I labelled it with my user name, "dwise". Then when I had filled that one and start on a second data diskette, I labeled that one "dwise2" and, for symmetry, I relabelled the first one, "dwise1". Then one day a co-worker read the label of the dwise1 diskette and started to laugh. I didn't get the joke until he told me to read it out loud; up until then I had not realized that it sounded like "The Wise One" and we all had a good laugh over the unintentional pun.

Then when I signed up for AOL several years later, in the middle of the sign-up process I suddenly had to think up a screen name. All I could think of was that accidental pun and so chose "DWise1" as my screen name.

Well, there you have the story. Nothing at all to it. And others have also chosen that name, albeit on other domains, of course -- in each domain there can be only one of any user name. I have so often found "dwise1" already taken on various on-line fora that I have resorted to "dwise1_aol" to ensure that my first attempt to register will be unique.

Share and enjoy!

Go to DWise1's Main Site

Contact me.

First uploaded on 1997 June 26.
Last updated on 2016 May 12.