1998:
$13 million market
Institute for Creation Research: 45%
Answers in Genesis: 28%
Discovery Institute: 15%
Creation Evidence Museum: 3%
Creation Moments: 2%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 3%
Creation Research Society: no data
All others: less than 1% each

1999:
$13 million market
Institute for Creation Research: 41%
Answers in Genesis: 30%
Discovery Institute: 13%
Creation Evidence Museum: 7%
Creation Moments: 2%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 2%
Creation Research Society: 2%
All others: less than 1% each

2000:
$16 million market
Answers in Genesis: 46%
Institute for Creation Research: 34%
Discovery Institute: 10%
Creation Evidence Museum: 4%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 2%
Creation Moments: 1%
Creation Research Society: 1%
All others: less than 1% each

2001:
$20 million market
Answers in Genesis: 46%
Institute for Creation Research: 30%
Discovery Institute: 15%
Creation Evidence Museum: 3%
Creation Research Society: 1%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 1%
Creation Moments: 1%
All others: less than 1% each

2002:
$19 million market
Answers in Genesis: 49%
Institute for Creation Research: 31%
Discovery Institute: 12%
Creation Evidence Museum: 3%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 2%
Creation Research Society: 2%
Creation Moments: 1%
All others: less than 1% each

2003:
$21 million market
Answers in Genesis: 52%
Institute for Creation Research: 28%
Discovery Institute: 15%
Creation Evidence Museum: 2%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 2%
Creation Moments: 1%
Creation Research Society: 1%
All others: less than 1% each

2004:
$22 million market
Answers in Genesis: 59%
Institute for Creation Research: 20%
Discovery Institute: 16%
Creation Research Society: 1%
Creation Moments: 1%
Creation Evidence Museum: no data
Creation Illustrated Ministries: no data

Incidentally the IDEA Center, whcih I’m affiliated with, has a published annual budget of $7,000. None of the YEC resources we recommend are even on Lippard’s list! That’s how impoverished the best and the brightest YEC organizations are!

Lippard has many other posts on the activities of creationist organizations. For example Answers in Genesis hires Andrew Snelling

Snelling is one of the very few young earth creationist geologists on the planet with a Ph.D. from a mainstream academic institution (Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research is another). Ronald Numbers’ book, The Creationists, describes how Henry Morris of the ICR wanted to see a young creationist successfully obtain a Ph.D. in geology from a mainstream institution, only to be faced with failures by Clifford Burdick (who was kicked out of the program at the University of Arizona) and Nicolaas Rupke (who succeeded in obtaining his Ph.D., but rejected young-earth creationism as a result of what he learned in the process).

It is a bit heart breaking that there really is not a lot of money involved, considering this represents the entire USA. Furthermore, only a tiny fraction is devoted to research. AiG is mostly an evangelistic organization, not a research institution.

However, there is the bright side. I have personally found that I tend to distrust the scientific work of creationists bent on evangelism. Whether right or wrong, I worry that someone’s enthusiasm to prove creationist theory will lead to shortcuts or sloppy research. It is much more compelling when secular quarters will publish data that unwittingly support creationist conclusions. I find that research more trust worthy.

And I must break ranks with other creationists on their lack of clarity with the notion that the Bible is incontrovertable. It depends on what one means by incontrovertible. If one believes it to be the case because that’s the way reality really is, then one would look forward to seeing the Bible’s claims succeed when subjected to the most intense scrutiny. Incontrovertible does not mean God’s word cannot be questioned. Recall, the Berean’s were considered to have a noble spirit as they investigated the words of the Apostles. The Lord also commended one of the 7 churches of Asia minor for subjecting putting prophets to the test…..

I believe it is also wise to make a distinction of when one is running a science or marketing operation versus a church. Too many creationists organizations are run like churches. Contrast the ID organization, the Discovery Institute, that is organized on a secular basis. The Discovery Institute is a model organization which certain creation organizations would do well to emulate. Ironically, my faith has grown through involvment with a secular organization, not a religious one (namely the Discovery Institute and the IDEA Center). And incidentally, how often do I hear of Christians losing faith by going to seminary. I have found faith surprisingly flourishes in secular schools.

I do not believe it is wise to set up creation science organizations where serious and sincere objections can be dismissed by theological fiat, or where legitimate concerns are implicated as some conspiracy with Lucifer. I believe there is evil in the world, and that we are blind and fallible. But what is wrong with confessing that one has doubts and that one is needing healing of ones eyes? People who have sincere doubts should be welcomed and encouraged.

Be merciful to those who doubt

Jude 1:22

The modus operandi of suppressing legitimate questions actually fosters an intense distrust in the hypothesis of creation. I think the AiG museum is a bit pre-mature. It may be entertaining, but it does not help friendly skeptics like myself to be more convinced that God really made the world less than 10,000 years ago. The over marketing of an idea with pre-mature evidence does not instill trust. Faith is about trust.

In the mean time, the point of the post was to point out the financial and academic poverty of creationists. Few creationists have serious academic credentials or influence. We might say, in some sense, few creationists are “wise” as the world defines them. Few have the money and influence you would expect to achieve the grand aims of showing the world evidence of intelligent design and special creation. Perhaps that’s just the way it was meant to be:

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

1 Cor 1:26-31

PS
I’ll be away for the weekend. Apologies in advance if stuff gets caught in the spam buffer. The other admins can be called on to release comment.

Note to admins: Click “Manage” from the admin page to release comments.

In fact, the BSG’s activities have reached the very halls of the Unted States Congress and the Office of Special Council in the Richard Sternberg affair. See: www.rsternberg.net

Here are my reflections of Thursday, June 14, 2007:

In attendance were 65 people including

Kurt Wise
Paul Nelson
Marcus Ross
Todd Wood
Gordon Wilson
Tim Brophy
Georgia Purdom
David Cavanaugh
Steve Gollmer

There were several others, some of whom I perhaps should not mention since they’re somewhat in Guillermo Gonzalez’s shoes right now if you know what I mean.

[Ironically, I did not have the privilege of meeting Jean Lightner who gives her alternate report here.]

I was only there on Thrusday Evening, June 14, 2007 for the business meeting (election of officers) and the poster session so I will focus on that.

When I walked in to DeMoss hall I saw a very attractive and charming woman talking on her cell phone. It was none other the molecular biologist Dr. Georgia Purdom. Purdom had made some very negative comments about ID at the 2005 YEC mega-conference. Conversely, I had also made some very negative remarks publicly about what she had to say about ID. She recognized me too. OOPS! She was very kind to show me around, and I’ve decide from this day forward, to be much nicer when I crticize Dr. Purdom publicly.

Most creationist ideas that one reads in the literature is geared toward demolishing naturalistic evolution. BSG is for the most part is not focusing on that. In a manner of speaking, Darwinism is about as relevant to their science as phlogiston is to chemsitry….

Their investigation is not focused on disproving Darwinism (like most everyone else). The question they focus on are:

1. what were the created kinds and how did they evolve into the creatures we see to day. For example, many Baraminologists think Wolves, Jackals, Dogs, and Foxes proceeded from a common ancestor. If this sort of front-loaded evolution existed, then that would solve a lot of problems with all the creatures in Noah’s ark. One can somewhat commically argue, YECs are hyper-evolutionists. [See this great YEC article: Evolution: God's Greatest Creation.]

2. what sort of things were front-loaded into the organisms. Gordon Wilson and others argue death, disease, thorns, thistles, and all sorts of other miseries were pre-programmed into life. They discuss empirically detecting evidence to support this hypothesis. Plagues, like those today, and those which God used against Pharoah, are the work of Intelligent Design….

3. Systems Biology and Medical Research from a creationist theory. I have pointed out many times at Uncommon Descent, how the Darwinian paradigm continues to incorrectly characterize biology as it operates today (much less as to how it operated in the past). If Darwinists like Ken Miller can so casually dismiss DNA as junk, when in fact it has medical significance, how much better will a creationist biology help advance medical science.

I was impressed that active interest in pusuing medical and industrial science is becoming a major focus versus purely activities of “evanglizing and making war on evil world views”. As creation theory helps advance science, it will help further its acceptance. In the words of the Apostle Peter, there are times hearts are won over without saying a thing…..

I talked to Marcus Ross, and he agreed that 20 years ago, creationist ideas were in horrible shape. The classic example is canopy theory by Henry Morris which dominated (dare I say impeded) creationist theory for 30 years…..

With that thought, I mentioned that creationists would do well to start a journal where fierce criticisms of their theory would be admitted and not censored. I said it would attract readership because it allowed controversy rather than supress it. He thought it was a good idea. [Any one willing to help in this enterprise. hint hint.]

One of the best creationist journals has only 10 submissions, and is available for free online. It is the BSG’s occasional papers. I would be delighted to see one like that, but one that reflects some of the values of the YoungCosmos website, where contrary opinions are welcomed and even sought after.

Most creationists journal will not pass something written favorable to Old Earth or Darwinists. But this scientific research is not about evangelizing or persuading, it is about dealing with tough questions and finding answers. YEC theory will advance by allowing criticism, it will be hindered to the extent it evades and supresses it. YECs will not solve problems with YEC theory unless they are willing to first acknowledge these problems exist.

If God is for the YECs, the theory will prevail in the end, despite human efforts to disprove it. I am officially sympathetic to the theory, but I think as a scientific hypothesis (versus a theological one), it has a long, long way to go.

Finally, I must mention Kurt Wise whom I met for the very first time. Oh my goodness. He had studied under the best paleotologists in the world at University of Chicago (under David Raup) and then got his PhD at Harvard under the tutelage and association of the most famous Darwinsits:

Stephen Gould
Richard Lewontin
Ernst Mayr
E.O. Wilson

Oh, my goodness. Could a creationist have a richer background than that? Wise helped teach some of Lewontin’s classes in statistical biology. He also studied fractals under Mandelbrot. Good gravy, the guy is a scholar. He spoke so glowingly of his mentors like Gould, Lewontin, and Mayr.

If one wonders whether miracles can happen, one only need look at Kurt Wise, the YEC who was awarded a PhD by Stephen Gould and the Darwinists at Harvard.