AIG recently re-posted this article from 2007 by Paul Taylor from AIG UK.

This chemistry graduate and ex-teacher takes a break from claiming that 99.9% of the worlds biologists are either incompetent or part of a worldwide atheist conspiracy, to claim that 99.9% of the world’s cosmologists are either incompetent or are part of a worldwide atheist conspiracy.

The point that should concern Christian parents and teachers is that only one worldview—a secular evolutionary worldview—is taught as if it were established fact, contrary to the actual requirements of the National Curriculum.

In Paul’s world he has his own definition of the word “evolve” that leads him to some unusual conclusions about the curriculum;

4.4c — how stars evolve over a long timescale

In 4.4c, the use of the word evolve is likely to cause confusion and is probably included to imply an acceptance of big bang cosmology.

He goes on to accuse the writers of the syllabus of simply assuming that the speed of light has always been constant.  Never mind Einstein and the careful output from thousands of experiments in fields ranging from cosmology, astronomy and physics, he thinks that the world is just six thousand years old beacuse he added up the ages of people in the bible.

From the blog “God Would Be An Atheist” an account of the creationist Paul Taylor at the recent Skeptics In The Pub Event.

No answers in Genesis
Creationism fails again
October 14, 2008

To the London Skeptics (sic) meeting in Holborn last night, to hear Paul Taylor of answersingenesis.org (pictured) give a talk on “Why don’t Creationists just shut up?”

First the upside. Paul is an affable chap, an ex-science teacher who, one suspects, was good at his job and well-liked by his pupils. He has a sense of humour and an easy speaking style and was unruffled by the many technical questions thrown at him in the Q and A session. We sceptics (I’m not a member, so I can use good British spelling) gave him a good hearing and the questions and comments were mostly put in tones of amusement or bemusement. There was no hostility from either side, as you would expect, given that we’re all – well, nearly all – rational people.

Now, the downside. Let’s put aside the fact that the title had nothing to do with the talk Taylor gave – most of us are guilty of saying what we want to say irrespective of the question we’re asked. And let’s temporarily set aside the fact that most of his talk was criticism of conventional evolutionary knowledge and scientific method. There’s no harm in pointing out apparent anomalies in a theory that you don’t understand and don’t agree with. Criticism can lead to intelligent debate and new insights, although last night didn’t get that far.

The real problem was not Taylor’s willingness to criticise conventional science but his inability to present his alternative – Creationism – in any meaningful way. All the questions on that topic received only vague answers. To take one example, two of us asked about the aftermath of the Flood (Genesis chps 6 – 8). I queried how the koala returned to Australia from the middle of Turkey after the waters subsided – a particulaly arduous task, given the distance involved, the inability of koalas to swim long distances and the lack of eucalyptus leaves (their only diet) en route. The other questioner asked about the availability of plants for animals to eat on a water-sodden earth. (Similar questions can be asked about penguins crossing the Sahara and how long the carnivores had to starve before the herbivores procreated enough to allow all species to continue eating their required diet.)

Taylor’s reply was the weakest of fudges. Maybe there was a land-bridge, he said. Maybe koalas had a different diet. As to the herbivores, maybe the plants grew really, really quickly. In other words, he had no idea.

On one level, this response is laughable. Creationism claims to be a science – which implies strict, testable theories – yet it cannot provide a simple, verifiable explanation for one of its most basic tenets, the Flood. There’s a reason why of course – the Bible doesn’t give that information. That in itself is suspicious; if the Bible truly is the word of God, the deity is remarkably uninformative at some very critical points in Biblical history (what crucial information is missing between Genesis 6:4 and Genesis 6:5, for example?), while providing us with too much information at other points (Exodus 33:23).

On another level, however, Taylor’s meaningless response reveals the hypocrisy and arrogance. Creationists are always eager to present harsh analyses of conventional science (this took up the bulk of his talk), using material which has a superficial credibility – yes, there are scientific papers verifying discrepancies in dating methods; yes, there are aspects of evolution that are still poorly understood. But they are always reluctant or unable to put forward clear, verifiable explanations for phenomena from the Creationist point of view (Taylor told us almost nothing about Creationist “science”.)

We were not looking for deep science. We accepted that Taylor was a generalist. But from a Creationist point of view, this was such a relatively simple task. After all, it is much easier to explain how two koalas and their offspring can travel several thousand miles across deserts, tropical forest and open sea than to explain the process by which single-celled life evolved into the complex human organisms that we are today. Yet no Creationist has ever explained even that simple fact; the koala question is extensively discussed on the web, but singularly avoided by Creationists.

It is that which makes me angry – not the legitimate questioning of Darwinism and related disciplines, which I can accept and participate in – but the trashing of conventional science by people who cannot be bothered to explain even the basics of their own theories. It is the desire to destroy rather than create. It is the reaction of the intellectually lazy to complex and continually evolving concepts.

It would be bad enough if this intellectual dishonesty was restricted to adults who fully understand how to debate and reason, but it goes further. The proselytisation of children – the lie that Creationism is somehow a science – is the most damning aspect of the whole charade. Our future depends on our children learn intellectual honesty; in disguising itself in the clothes of true science, Creationism lies to them again and again.

This is not meant to be – and should not be taken as – an ad hominem attack on Paul Taylor. I am convinced that he is sincere and he has not thought through the implications of what he is saying. But that means I want to finish this piece by focusing on one key remark that he made and leading him through the implications.

Paul, you said that your starting point for your “science” was belief in the Bible as the Word of God. Do you understand the implications of that statement? You are basically saying – “this book gives me the answer to everything; now I need to find the evidence to confirm it”.

Your statement is the same as that of the detective who surveys a crime scene and says “the butler did it; now I need to find the evidence to confirm it”. No doubt the detective can find some evidence that supports his theory, and where evidence is lacking he can offer suggestions that point the finger at the butler. And when he finds evidence that suggests or proves the butler is innocent, the detective ignores it. By selecting the evidence that comes to court, the detective ensures that the butler will be found guilty and sentenced for a crime he may not have committed. Creationism, by deciding the answer before it examines the facts, is as guilty of perverting truth and justice as the detective.

Paul, another speaker in the audience last nighted hinted at what real science is – and it is something that I really don’t think you understand. Real science says “we do not know the answer; let’s look at the evidence and see where it leads us”. At the moment, the evidence is leading us clearly towards evolution, despite its uncertainties and inconsistencies, but if ever there is consistent, irrefutable evidence that points elsewhere – including to the Biblical version – I assure you that I and all reasonable men and women will follow it.

We are not asking you to give up your faith, Paul. We are only asking you to use the intelligence that you believe God gave you. Does God really want you to invent silly stories about the koala? Did he really plant fossils all over the world to mess up the minds of his creation? Does he want you to privilege unproveable myths over logic and facts? For the sake of the country’s children, if not your own faith and peace of mind, please think again about the ignorance you are promoting and the damage you are doing to those around you.

With thanks to our correspondent who went to see Paul Taylor speak earlier this year and then submitted this piece for our wiki;

Intro

Paul Taylor is the Head of Media and Publications of Answers in Genesis (UK/Europe) in the UK.  He has a Chemistry degree (BSc) from Nottingham University and many years experience as a schoolteacher and department head.  As with all AiG UK staff, he has no formal qualification in biology, geology, astrophysics or theology.  

Despite this lack of scientific training, Taylor is one of three speakers at AiG’s 11-person operation in the UK.  As such, he holds the AiG line, insisting that the Bible is inerrant and that the entire universe was created in just 6 days.  Taylor has written two books: ‘The Six Days of Genesis’ and ‘Truth, Lies and Science Education’.  He is a frequent speaker at churches, although sadly he chooses not to answer questions at these events, instead running a stall of books and DVDs at the end of his sermon.  

The Blog

Taylor has stated controversial opinions on a number of issues.  His blog requests that all contributors abide by a statement of faith that runs to a full 19 points, including such choice gems as: “That Christ is the vine and Israel is the true branch(es). The church is the wild branch that is grafted into the true vine.”, and that God “has foreordained everything that happens” (so much for free will!).  The original forum failed to attract any postings other than the Statement of Faith itself.  It has since been re-launched in a new format and has rocketed to three posts at the time of writing.  All three are tests from Taylor.  

The blog also includes a link to a ‘J6Dpedia’.   The link is now broken, but according to WikiChristian this was “an online Bible commentary with a 6-day-creation viewpoint.”  

The blog itself is primarily concerned with invective against Christians who disagree with Taylor’s opinions, atheists, the European Union, secular schoolteachers and anyone else who Taylor dislikes, in roughly that order of frequency.  Taylor has also used it to express his disaproval of religious tolerance.  

The Science

In his public speeches, as in his blog, Taylor devotes much of his energies to attacking perceived heresies.  He argues against the day/age theory on scriptural grounds, pointing out that no-one takes other Biblical phrases (such as Josua’s attack on Jericho) as having taken thousands of years (though he neglects to mention that Adam is condemned to die “the same day” as eating the fruit from the Tree).  

When it comes to science, Taylor is on shakier ground.  He has several set-piece talks, and what follows is not an exhaustive listing of all his claims.  Some of his more unusual claims are that: 

• All creatures were created by God as vegetarians and T Rex teeth were designed for eating mangoes (he doesn’t mention the other predatory features such as forward-facing eyes and a small digestive system, not does he seem aware of evidence of bite-marks on some fossil dinosaurs).  He further backs this up by pointing out that modern carnivores are able to survive on a vegetarian diet, using the example of the lions in London Zoo which survived on a diet of cabbages during the Second World War.  The Zoological Society of London has responded to this claim in an email from their press office: 

  “In fact, the lions and other carnivores were not put on a vegetarian diet.  In his article ‘The History of London Zoo’ (The World of London Zoo, p.74), John Edwards writes: ‘…the carnivores were kept alive with comparative ease, because the Zoo was sent a lot of condemned meat from bomb-damaged buildings, as well as the corpses of dogs from Battersea Dogs’ Home.’  Lions cannot live on grass. Like domestic cats, they would only eat grass as an emetic.”  
   

• The Australopithecine fossil ‘Lucy’ was fully ape-like, with no human characteristics.  As part of this, he claims that Lucy did not walk upright, and devotes much time to attacking the Natural History Museum’s reconstruction of Lucy, which shows her with human-like feet, despite the Lucy remains not having any feet.  In conversation, Taylor has admitted that he is aware of other Australopithecine remains that do have the feet preserved.  These feet are intermediate, with a grasping toe but a human-like heel, and would have been suited to an upright gait.  Taylor shows no recognition of the fact that the pelvis and spine of Autralopithecenes are also distinctly bipedal.  

  Taylor’s criticism of the Natural History Museum for using a reconstruction alongside replicas of the Lucy fossils stands in sharp contrast to his enthusiastic endorsement of the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum, with its displays of humans playing with and riding dinosaurs, something flatly contradicted by all the available fossil evidence.  

• Traditional Creationist solutions to the ’starlight problem’ (how light from stars millions of light-years away can reach the Earth in just 6000 years) fail – a changing speed of light would have many consequences we do not observe, and starlight created already en route to Earth would imply a deceptive creator (something that Taylor cannot countenance).  Instead, he subscribes to the ‘White Hole Cosmology’ – the idea that the entire universe is inside the event horizon of a massive white hole, with the Earth at its centre.  Aside from a few obvious problems (why can we not see this nearby 2 light year-wide radiation source from Earth?  Why doesn’t the relativistic compression of 14 billion years worth of starlight into 6000 years fry the Earth?), this is considered pseudo-science by every qualified astrophysicist in the world, not leastly as is requires us to assume that the Earth is in a uniquely priveledged position in the Universe, an assumption that has been unpopular since Copernicus’ day.  It also contradicts measurements of the cosmological constant.  In his talks, Taylor breezes over these points by simply saying they are ‘technical’.
• Taylor, like many Creationists, actually accepts most of what Darwin said.  However, he seeks to distinguish between ‘microevolution’ – apparently defined as ‘evolution on a scale that Paul Taylor can reconcile with his interpretation of the Bible’ – and ‘macroevolution’, which is everything else.  As an example of ‘microevolution’, Taylor uses the Brassicas – the Family of plants that includes the cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, turnip, rapeseed, mustard, radish, horseradish, cress and watercress, as well as Taylor’s personal bugbear the Brussels sprout.  Taylor is happy to accept that all these plants evolved from a single common ancestor.  However, he offers no explanation for how we can tell that these specific plants evolved from each-other, but that other plants such as peas did not.  Could this be because if he did explain his reasoning, it would also support evolution at much greater levels than he can accept?  It is also strange that Taylor is able to accept evolution at the Family level among plants, but rejects the idea that humans, chimps, gorillas and orang-utans constitute a similar Family.  His only justification for this is the concept of ‘information’, though he does not explain how we can tell whether a pea contains more information than a cauliflower.  
• Taylor says that we should take the Bible literally.  However, his interpretation of what constitutes a ‘literal’ reading of the Bible can be quite unusual, and often seems to owe more to his personal opinions than the text.  He claims that the Bible predicted relativity on the basis of verses such as Psalm 90: “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night”.  He also gives this strange non-sequitur on his blog: 

  “I believe that education is part of the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28:’And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.’”

He has also claimed in public that Gregor Mendel discovered natural selection prior to Darwin.  

Our full wiki entry on Paul Taylor can be seen here.