Tuesday, June 11, 2013

#592: Charles Creager jr.

Charles Creager has a bachelor of science degree from BobJones University and is thus a well-qualified creation scientist. His main claim to fame is his publication in the first volume of the Answers Research Journal (the house journal of Answers in Genesis) titled “Mars, a Testament to Catastrophe”. In this delightful article Creager claims to present evidence that Mars had a global flood as well. (Come on: it wouldn’t be consistent with the Bible if God only flooded the humans and not the Martians, would it?) He presents no new data, but insanely twists and tortures existing data from Mars rover missions (see this one) to suit his results. The scholarly references in the article are to press releases and only the pictures on NASA’s website.

Creager doesn’t seem to have contributed much else to science – though he runs his own creationist website, the Genesis Mission and had a paper “Entropy and Applied Energy” published in Creation Research Society Quarterly in 2012 – but the aforementioned paper is alone sufficient to earn him an honored place in our Encyclopedia.

Diagnosis: A rather cute attempt at “we want to do science too” without having the faintest idea what science is.


  1. Creager (and his brother James) used to be associated with another loon, Frank Raddish, founder of Capitol Hill Independent Baptist Ministries...but a recent look at Raddish's website reveals that the Creagers are no longer mentioned.

    By the way, that website and its various 'resources' are riddled with misspellings and grammatical errors. I was stunned...stunned, I tell you!

  2. I encountered Creager recently on Twitter, where he was using the same logic (or lack of it) to claim he had evidence for an intelligent designer. He lined up a variety of papers from a number of fields which he claimed as evidence. When it was pointed out to him that none of the experiments cited contained any reference to such a designer he claimed that it didn't matter because the collection of papers taken together did. Total idiocy.

    He also claimed a designer was falsifiable then it wasn't......I was left entirely confused about the point he was trying to make.....if there was one.

    He also claimed that I had "refused to accept his evidence" - quite what that evidence was is still unclear.

    I suggested that he write a paper, submit it for academic peer-review then site back and await his Nobel Laureate.

    I won't hold my breath.