Who wants to do real science? Science is hard, you have to study for a long time, learn formulas and concepts, devise experiments, validate and analyze the results, write and publish in-depth articles explaining your research for peer review in science magazines, run, work in or deal with a lab as well as often apply for grants.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just get ALL your answers directly from ONE book? Instead of studying evolutionary biology, molecular biology, genetics, neurology, paleontology, archeology, geochronology, geology, geomorphology, climatology, astronomy, cosmology, physics or chemistry, as well as how to use machines such as a electron microscope or mass spectrometer, you can just read clips of ONE book. Can’t get easier. That book contains ALL the answers. If you want, you can spend some time glancing over a science glossary just to have the gist of what the scientific words are in order to argue with those “scientist”.
Here are a few trick to make you a better creationist:
Argumentation & Methods
Start by general statements that give the impression that you have the answers relating to those statements, such as “Ever wondered where we come from, where we are going, and how you can be a better person?”
Always start with the conclusion, then find semi-relevant non-confirmed anecdotes to support your position. If you don’t, you might end up with a different conclusion. We all know there is only 1 conclusion possible: the Word of God.
Mix several disciplines and concepts into the general label “Evolution”, such as geology, geomorphology, abiogenesis, astronomy, physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, genetics, paleontology, theory of evolution by natural selection, etc. You are also allowed to mix in gravity and naturalism.
Equate “evolution” and science in general with godlessness. Make the audience think that if they accept “evolution”, they are rejecting the Word of God and God Himself.
Use several logical techniques (called logical fallacies by our opponents) during arguments, such as moving the goal post, Ad hominem, argument from authority, Confusing association with causation, false dichotomy, strawmen attacks, etc. Those will help you achieve a point without having to give a full solid argument or show data supporting your position.
Conflate facts about evolution to give a different picture, no matter when those things were thought to be true. Bring back ideas from the 1800s along with discredited ideas from the 1950s to give the impression that “scientist” are in agreement with those ideas.
Insist that “scientist” are not agreeing, are divided, or even confused over their own theories.
Refute ANY claims that humans have things in common with animals, even if “scientists” demonstrate that our human biology is identical to the ones of animals. Play the emotional card. Ask the audience if they are monkeys.
Attack Charles Darwin’s character as “evolutionists” think he’s a god. Tell the audience he was a drunk and that he recanted his “theory” on his death bed. You do not need to worry about citing sources for these allegations.
When debating an “evolutionist”, use a technique called “surfacing”: quickly change topics and disciplines to avoid in-depth discussion on a single topic. It will give the audience the impression that you are confident and a master of many disciplines.
Call atheists, “Darwinists” and “evolutionists” a religion based on faith alone. Call the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection a fairy-tale. Insist that “scientists” have to “believe”.
Always use the popular meaning of the word “theory” to equate it with “hypothesis”, “idea” or “guess”. Never use the word “theory” in its scientific meaning, which is
When confronted by “scientist” about our lack of experiments, cite a few experiments from our suggested list. Do not give details about who did the experiments, the data source, methodology, instrumentation & calibration, experiment replication or analysis. Focus solely on the conclusion. If they grill you on the absence of creationist paper published by mainstream scientific publications, invoke ostracism for our beliefs and scientific conspiracies.
When interviewed by mainstream media outlets, insist we only want fairness in classes. We want children to have an open mind about the different theories. When talking about Intelligent Design, do not talk about Creationism. That word is no longer in use as it has too much of a religion connotation. Intelligent Design sounds more modern and serious. Do not worry, it is only a name change, as all concepts and notions of Creationism are still valid. Please change topics if someone from the media or a debater is asking about if other theories (such as the Flat Earth, Astrology, Alchemy, African Creation Myth, etc) should also be thought in science class.
Do not refer to yourself as an “Intelligent Designer” but as a “proponent of Intelligent Design” (of ID).
Data & Support
Often refer to your DVDs, seminars or blog. This will give you the instant credentials of implied deep research without having to explain if those are even relevant to the discussion.
Deny that any evidence has ever been found on topics such as the theory of evolution. Ignore the multiple example of transitional forms offered by “scientists”. Keep repeating that we have not found any evidence over and over.
Learn to deflect arguments by showing funny slides that are not related to the topic. For example, if a “scientist” talk about evolution, show a slide of a a rock, a monkey, and a grandmother and say: “So, you think that rock transformed into that monkey, then into Grandma?” Wait for applause and laugh from your uneducated crown.
Use irrelevant example to simulate the argumentative position of your opponent, such as: “I’ve never seen cats give birth to dog, have you?” Wait for cheers. Slay your audience by showing our venerable crocoduck image.
Do not engage “scientists” into in-depth debate using data. Data is NOT your friend. Refrain from using it.
Whenever you are using example, try to use folksy images, simple language things regular folks can relate to, such as Grandpa, hunting, small numbers, etc.
Show drawing of people with dinosaur to illustrate your point. People will forget the complex topics and only remember those images. Graph are OK to show if they have only 1 curve, a large, simple title and seem to reinforce your position. Credits or data source are not welcomed.
Talk about the Creation Museum several times. If it’s in a museum, it MUST be true.
You can use the products of “science” such as microwaves, cell phones, MRI, X-Rays, HD TV, digital cameras, and your SUV, But remember, even if a principle is valid in making those things work, that principle is NOT valid if it contradicts The Bible. Radioactive decay is absolutely real and valid unless it is used to estimate the age of the Earth to more than 6,000 years old.
Use famous hoaxes, artist renditions and examples of rogue data to discredit entire science disciplines. Talk about a mammoth’s bones that was carton-dated thousand of years older than its skin. Do not cite source or the fact that no “real scientist” ever took them seriously.
Identity & Authority
Wear appropriate close to show you care about science, such as a dinosaur tie and a lab coat.
Boast your credentials but under NO circumstance, explain where you got your degree. “Scientists” tend to disparage your science degree from Church of Christ Rosary Evangelical Academy of Real Good Science. Referring to yourself as Dr. Dino or Chemist John is a good way to establish credentials. Equate teaching highschool science in a evangelical school of 23 students with being a real scientist.
When you say a big number, you MUST emphasize the first syllable by elongating it. It will enhance the incredulity factor by up to 350%. Do not emphasize the word Thousand,, as you don’t want people to think even that unit is out of reach and hard to imagine. For example:
“Scientist” say this fossil is 265 Milllllllions year old and the Earth if 4.5 Billllllllions year old.
We know from The Bible the Earth is 6 Thousand years old. (Do not say: “6 Thouuuuuuuusand years old”)
Remember, most people do not have even a basis understanding of science, so they will not be hard to convince if you appear to know more than them by using complex words. Many are intimidated and impressed by long, complex words. They also will not know if you barely know the definition of the long words you are using. They cannot differentiate between real and false credentials, cannot sort irrelevant facts from relevant ones, and cannot evaluate or compare ideas by applying critical thinking. Throw in big word such as “thermodynamic”, “irreducible complexity” and “punctual equilibrium” and you will appear like an expert.
Keep certain things as a last resort weapon, such as “Go mate with your monkey dad”, or “Burn in Hell!”
Good luck, good debate and God bless you!