“Creationuts ALWAYS brag how they won the debate. Funny, though, that in court, where they can't lie, evade questions, or set the agenda, they always lose.” Lenny Flank, Debunk Creation, 18th April 2006

Earthquakes are “the result of the earth’s groaning for the return of Christ.” (Creation News – the newsletter of Creation Research, Vol 19, No 2, 2005)

"In all of these efforts, [to promote creationism in schools] the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must." – William Bennetta**

“Speaking in schools is part of this ministry and though we don't normally advertise the details of such visits, apart from the school near Blackpool, we are expecting that John will be able to take classes in a number of schools on this tour.“ Creation Ministries UK statement, March 2006

1: Primer on Christian Fundamentalism and Creationism

This is an initial Report on the UK tour of religious fundamentalist John Mackay of Creation Research. The tour is extremely controversial because Mackay and his team have gained access to at least one, and, possibly more, UK state schools to teach creationism.

This has been achieved without notification to the parents of the children or the local education authority (Lancashire County Council) that is responsible for the schools in the county.

Moreover, the “teaching” goes way beyond a simple “sermon” in school assembly or a presentation in a religious education class. Mackay and his team appear (totalling four people) appear to have been given a full three days (and, possibly, as many as five) to teach throughout the school(s). According to Creation Research’s web site, Mackay charges the school for such services. His standard rates suggest that his team will each be paid £300 a day for teaching views that contradict the national curriculum.

Mackay is promoting what is called Young Earth Creationism. This is the belief that the world was created 6,000-10,000 years go and that the story of the flood and Noah’s Ark is absolutely true. Dinosaurs lived until 2,300 years ago and were present on the Ark.

It claims that scientists and geologists are completely wrong that the world is billions of years old and that the theory of evolution through natural selection is fraudulent. It claims that it has scientific evidence that proves this to be the case even though none of the evidence has ever stood up to scrutiny. Indeed, the scientific community (and anyone else with any common sense) believes that the creationist claims are completely hocus-pocus.

The creationists believe that by attacking the rationality, reason and modernity of science, they can re-engineer the whole of society and gain political power. Their aims appear to be to return society to the 17^th century.

Moreover, the creationist movement is part of a broader Christian fundamentalist movement much of which believes in Dominionism. In essence, they believe that democracy should be replaced with a theocracy (with themselves in charge, of course).

The organisation that is general recognised as founding and spreading dominionism as a widespread belief is called the Chalcedon Foundation. It has proposed that anyone who doesn’t believe in its own fundamentalist views be murdered, along side children who are disrespectful to their parents, gays, women who have sex before marriage (but not men) and adulterers. It also backs the return of slavery.

It’s objectives, if ever enacted, would leave most of the word dead or in slavery.

However, worse still, is that another, large part of the Christian fundamentalist movement is dispensationalist. They are active in creating conditions for a major war in the Middle East. As with other fundamentalists, this objective is based on the literal interpretation of the bible, which, they claim, says that a war is necessary for the return of Christ. In that war, three quarters of all Jews in Israel will be killed and the rest converted to Christianity, after which Christ will return to earth.

The Christian fundamentalists are thus a very dangerous movement.

Whilst Mackay claims his ministry is open to all denominations, he is a hardliner. I have found no evidence to suggest that he has publicly disowned either the dominionists or the dispensationalists with the fundamentalist movement.

The full details of the fundamentalist ambitions can be found in the Wedge document, a secret internal report of the Discovery Institute, which was leaked into the public domain a few years ago.

2: Who is John Mackay?

Mackay is an Australian and has been involved with the fundamentalist movement since the 1970s and has been (and still is) closely associated with other creationist movements.

He was originally a schoolteacher and holds a degree in geology from a reputable Australian university (Queensland). What Mackay has never been is a professional, practising geologist. Despite the name of his ministry, he has never had a peer-reviewed article in any scientific or geological journal. Nor is the author of this report aware that he has ever submitted such a paper.

Mackay has also been described as a geneticist, presumably because he undertook a course in this subject as part of his BSc. However, one thing Mackay is not is a geneticist. What he would have learned in a 1^st degree in geology is both years out of date and well below the breadth and depth of education, which most consider as necessary to be a practising geneticist. Mackay certainly has never practised as a geneticist.

Nor does Mackay appear to have any theological qualifications whatsoever. Note, though, that Vance Nelson, who appears to be teaching alongside Mackay in the UK sate school, has a theological background.

Mackay describes himself as International Director of Creation Research, rather than its head, or founder. However, the organisation looks to be wholly controlled by Mackay and appears to have been established solely by Mackay.

Mackay appears to have been involved in the creationist movement since the 1970s. At an earlier stage, he worked with Ken Ham in an organisation called Creation Science Educational Media Services. This operated in Queensland, ministering to churches.

The main creationist organisation in Australia at that time was the Creation Science Association which operated in every stated except Queensland. In 1979/1980, the two were merged to become the Creation Science Foundation. Both Ham and Mackay were part of the seven-man board of this new operation. At this stage, Mackay was described as a schoolteacher but by 1984, he was being described as a missionary.

Things did not go well for CSF during the 1980s. It was subject to fraud (but there was no wrongdoing amongst its members) and it lost $92,363. This is a lot of money for small outfit. The loss became apparent to the world in 1986.

In 1987 Ken Ham went to America to joining the Institute for Creation Research and Mackay pulled out of CSF to set up his own operation. The only information about Mackay’s split that the author has found is that it was over a personality class with a member of the CSF staff. However, subsequent information suggests that Mackay has little regard for either CSF’s Carl Wieland or Ken Ham.

Mackay believes firmly in the unquestioning religious indoctrination of children. He believes that all Christian teachers have a duty to teach according to the literal interpretations of the bible in all subjects (see www.skeptics.com.au/journal/beginning/creationism.pdf, page 6). There is to be no questioning of any of the so-called biblical truths.

His exceedingly dogmatic view of religion appears to be mirrored in what is known about his other opinions. Like many fundamentalists, he appears to dislike the feminist movement. Writing for his Creation News publication (August 1997) he discusses the 'the declared feminist desire to be able to clone humans, so [women] could dispense with men', and provides this insight into the science of cloning: Can you imagine the results of feminist-controlled cloning? A planet full of cloned female offspring whose similar physical characteristics would react identically to the same conditions, i.e. get sick at the same time, have the same monthly syndrome, wear the same face, like the same colours and fashions. Such feminist clones would bore themselves to death at the same predictable age.

As far as this author is aware, Mackay is married. His wife is called Anne.

Creation Research also appears to blame the 9/11 attack on belief in evolution. Its UK web site is reported (Guardian 25^th March 2002) to have commented that "believers should not be surprised when things like this happen ... The root cause of this increasing violence is sin - sin which is rooted in the refusal to glorify The Lord as the God who created the universe.”

"In recent western culture this refusal has been built around evolution and the denial of a god of any sort."

3: Preparing the Ground

The geneticist Professor Steve Jones (University College, London) commented in April 2006 that creationism was basically unknown in the UK until 4-5 years ago. Jones was clearly referring to the "modern" creationism originated by Henry Morris which claims it has the scientific evidence to prove the literal interpretation of the bible and disprove biological and geological evidence that contradict the bible.

Certainly, the evidence from Australia suggests that academics are usually the first to see the effects of the spread of creationism. The reason is simple – first year undergraduates turning up with bizarre ideas about the age of the earth, the existence of giants, belief that animals can be grouped by “kind” and so on – ideas guaranteed (unless changed) to result in exam failure.

There is some very clear evidence to suggest that Mackay has been one of the principle agents in spreading the creationism nonsense in the UK over the last five or six years. His 2006 visit to the UK is far from his first and he has had a UK arm of Creation Research in the form of Amen.co.uk for the whole of the current decade if not earlier.

The author’s understanding is that Mackay has been proselytising in the UK for about 15 years.

The one thing that Mackay appears to lack, so far, in the UK, is any heavy weight local brains. Creation Research’s speeches in the UK have largely been undertaken by Mackay himself (see later for an analysis of Creation Research UK). Mackay has also been careful to target the universities where various Christian societies are common and sometimes sympathetic towards creationism.

The Guardian reported in 2002 (25^th March) that Creation Research had undertaken a “survey” of British academics about their views on the origins of life and their willingness to debate it. The survey was clearly rigged to prove a point (this sort of thing is a common tactic amongst creationists).

Now, most self-respecting academics would throw such rubbish from a creationist straight in the bin Now, most self-respecting academics would throw such rubbish from a creationist straight in the bin. In fact, they were left in a no-win situation. If they indicated a refusal to debate, then this would be highlighted as clearly showing that believers in evolution could not defend their beliefs.

If on the other hand, they did agree to debate with Mackay, then they would be (potentially) at a severe disadvantage against someone who would set the agenda and have no hesitation in using all the advocacy tricks in the book including deception, misrepresentation and evasion.

Remember Mackay is a seasoned pro at this game – academics are not even trained in the simple basics of such debates. Indeed, scientific disputes are simply not resolved or resolvable by open, short debates.

By all accounts, the questionnaire was amateurish. The Guardian quoted one academic as saying, “it is so badly worded that it clearly is not written by someone who knows about the area”. It was then being handled by one Andrew Forbes, apparently part of Creation Ministries UK. The Guardian reported that Forbes’ intention was to poll very academic in the UK. Creation Research UK also stated, “we are working with him [but] it's a personal initiative, not something we are paying for”.

4: What is Creation Research?

Technically Creation Research is a Queensland-based Christian evangelical ministry (note that evangelical is not synonymous with creationism – Creation Research is a vocal critic of much of the evangelical movement. See www.amen.org.uk/cr/papers/creation-calvary.htm). There is little doubt that it is smaller that Creation Ministries (ex-AiG) or, indeed, AiG itself. However, its international presence appears to have grown significantly in recent years.

That Creation Research is a fundamentalist organisation is in no doubt. It’s web site states that the bible is “inerrant throughout” and that “Its assertions are factually true and it is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct”, and that “the account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for research into the origin and history of life.”

In effect, Creation Research’s starting point is its conclusion.

It then goes on to state its objective drawn form the conclusion: “Therefore we research, document and promote the scientific aspects of creation are important, they are secondary to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Sustainer, Saviour, Lord and Judge, Who is an equal member of the triune Godhead - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

(Note that this quote does not make grammatical sense.)

Its “science” therefore is built to fit between the conclusion and the objective. This just isn’t rational.

Normally a scientist (or anyone else trying to understand complex issues) make observations first (gather the facts), then draw the conclusions and seeks further, confirming, evidence. Either a model or a theory is used (or, in its absence, developed) to explain the observations and, if necessary, the make predictions.

What you don’t do is to provide the explanation, then find the facts. That’s the wrong way round. The rational approach has, as its objective, to expand knowledge or understanding. The objective of Creation Research is to convert people to religion.

Its “facts” are only there to proselytise – they are, by necessity, selective. None of its research or evidence is even remotely impartial or balanced. Consequently, it lacks any intellectual credibility whatsoever.

5: Who is Involved in Creation Ministries?

Creation Research looks to be quite a lose network of people in Europe, the UK, Canada and Australia which many giving it part time assistance or acting as agents or local organisers. Anne Mackay, probably John Mackay’s wife, is in charge of organising but does not appear to be active in preaching abroad.

The main heavyweight in the Australian operation appears to be Dr. Diane Eager and is understood to act as Creation Research’s in-house “scientist” (alongside John Mackay). Before joining Mackay full time in 2000, she was a lecturer in medical biology at the University of Canberra in Australia. She is a medical doctor & believed to be an Evangelical Anglican. Prior to 2000, she had worked closely with Creation Research.

Rather than using UK-based people for his more serious proselytising during April-June 2006, Mackay is brining in Diane Eager and a Canadian couple, Vance & Korelei Nelson, of Creation Truth Ministries – Canada.

According to CTM (http://www.creationtruthministries.org) Nelson is the director of CTM. It states that he holds two earned degrees. He earned a theology degree from North American Baptist College in 1997 (Bachelor of Religion with a specialisation in Christian ministry). Nelson also earned a science degree in 2002 (BSc in biology). Nelson also claims to have also studied concepts relating to creation and evolution at the college level (10 credit-hours directly relating to origin science).

However, no details are given as to the name of the college were he received his science degree or whether it was accredited or not. However, North American Baptist College is in Canada.

The CTM website is bragging that it is making presentations in state schools in England in May but does not name the schools:

Here are the details of the Nelson’s itinerary taken from CTM’s web site on 19^th April 2006:

April - England Tour

April 26th 1 Hour T.V. Program in U.K. with Call in Q & A.

April 30th London, Location T.B.A.

May - England Tour

May 1-5 Home School "Creation Conference" with Creation Research, England.

May 8-12 School "Creation Presentations" in state schools (public schools) with Creation Research, England.

May 14th Leeds/Doncaster, Location T.B.A.

The 26^TH April TV event is on Revelation TV, a satellite channel available through Sky Television

The 30^th April venue is at Westminster Chapel. This is a Congregationalist church and is a substantial building. Nelson is also “presenting” at the Calvary Chapel (Westminster City School) in Westminster the same evening.

Mackay is involved in the Home School conference as well. That is being held in Wales. Creation Research’s web site states that Mackay will be leading the event. Diane Eager is understood to be participating.

The 8th-12th venue is the one that is really making many angry. Mackay’s published itinerary completely omits the fact that it is over these five days and, indeed, Amen.co.uk seems to be suggesting the event is only for three days – Tuesday 9^th to Thursday 11^th. (it doesn’t actually state this though). Therefore, if Nelson is being truthful, the creationists have five days in the school(s).

According to Mackay’s itinerary, he has nothing booked for the 8^th May yet Nelson claims that he (Nelson) will be presenting in state schools on the 8^th.

Note that Nelson claims that he will be presenting in more than one state school (he uses the plural).

Mackay is due to be in Lancashire from 7^th May to 13^th May (and back on 16^th May).

Creation Research UK: This looks as if it is centred on a part-time husband and wife team, Randall and Mary Hardy. Randall Hardy is an electrician by trade and organises Creation Research itineraries in the UK. Creation Research UK is based in Ashton-under-Lyne in Lancashire and uses a PO Box. It re-sells Creation Research materials (pamphlets, DVDs, etc.) Presumably it is operated from the home of the Hardys.

The Hardys look to be hardline fundamentalists who have been into home education for their children.

It is run as a charitable trust called the Creation Research Charitable trust and was formed in April 2004.

Another husband and wife team, John and Marguerite Young handle the finances of Creation Research resource sales. Creation Research says that John Young is trained in finance and banking, and serves as a pastor in North Manchester.

A retired Oxford PhD (mathematics), Richard Johnston, appears to have been involved in Creation Research UK. However, as far as I am aware, that role has only involved web site material (and possibly design).

Others that appear to be (still) involved in Creation Research UK and Andrew Forbes (treasurer of the trust and described as a London-based financial consultant) and David Keep, secretary of the trust and a computer consultant.

Whilst there is no doubt that in his mind Randall Hardy is well meaning, his handling of the PR for Mackay’s 2006 UK tour displays all of the fundamentalist tricks of the trade – ad hominem attacks, false witness, evasiveness, shifting of blame, whinging, half truths – you name it, its got it.

In particular, the reader is drawn to a press release in Hardy’s name issued on 12^th April in response to press enquiries about the behind closed doors teaching of creationism in Lancashire schools.

Indeed, I suspect that it was not actually drafted by Hardy. Hardy is an electrician and is not noted for his written work.

Moreover, this is not the only information from Creation Ministries that appears to raise serious doubts about its ability to understand integrity. In particular, careful checking and cross checking of details has revealed a number of apparent discrepancies. The initial reading of Mackay’s itinerary suggested that he was proselytising for only one day in a state school. More detailed checking showed that it was actually for three days and further checking suggests that it is for a full five days.

Firstly, though, is the analysis of the 12^th April press release posted to Creation Research UK’s web site (see http://www.amen.org.uk/cr/CR_PressRelease060412.htm)

The author of this report has seen thousands of press releases in his time (and produced more than a few) and this one takes the biscuit. It displays every fundamentalist creationist trick in the book. From experience, the author has become well used to reading between the lines in PR statements. This one is as wily as they come.

One purpose of this section of the report is to is to show the tricks used by fundamentalists, in particular, the “fundie shuffle”, the martyrdom/self-pity complex, the smear and innuendo tactics and the outright dishonest use of the English language. This one’s got the lot and also manages to breach the Ninth Commandment to boot.

Read this part, for example: “Whilst Creation Research welcomes invitations to speak in schools and universities, we do not “target” them or any other institutions. What we do target is the unbelief in Jesus Christ which is underpinned in some people’s minds by the claims that evolution has been unequivocally proved.”

No mention, of course about Creation Research’s own religious beliefs which are far from mainstream – just the bogus and meaningless trick of stating that “some people” believe that evolution has been “unequivocally proved” It’s rhetoric meant to cast doubt in people’s minds. Without having the courage to say so, it was implying that some, wiser, people believed otherwise. It doesn’t even say that evolution is unproven.

For what it is worth – Nobody believes that The Theory of Evolution is proven, not even its most dedicated advocates amongst biologists and geologists. It’s science and the basis of all science is scepticism. It’s always being revised as new evidence comes to light.

Randall Hardy is using dirty tricks to imply otherwise.

Hardy then moves onto the standard Martyrdom trick of fundamentalist creationists (it’s as old as the hills). That is, how unreasonable is it for people to oppose academy and faith schools and all they want to do is ridicule Christian fundamentalists. No mention, of course, that there is serious public debate about the issues, which run well beyond the religious concerns (such as selection, quality of results, local control, the high costs…)

No, Hardy whines on that the whole shooting match is dominated by atheists and people stupid enough to join them. Hardy also whinges on that “it is convenient” to ridicule fundamentalists, whatever that means? See – no precise meaning to the words – all rhetoric, no substance.

Hardy also demonstrates a brilliant example of the “fundie shuffle” (old, old trick). Instead of calling the media atheists who misrepresent everything (as he has previously done so), he now provides no explanation why he is not answering their simple question – what s the name of the school where Mackay is teaching for three (or four or five) days.

“One report, on the Ekklesia web site, carries the headline “Creationists target schools and universities in Britain”. This is a report put together without any direct contact with ourselves and suffers from lavish amounts of spin.”

Thus, instead he “attacks” a mainstream religious web site, Ekklesia (no URL given – it is, though www.ekklesia.co.uk ). Unlike the Observer, the BBC, TES, Sky News and others that have approached Randall, this is a soft target for him.

Judge for oneself if the Ekklesia article is full of “lavish amounts of spin” as Hardy suggests:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060410creation.shtml
I can’t see a word of spin in it anywhere.

Somewhere in the deeper recesses of the minds of Creation Ministries, someone has figured out that you get bad publicity if you ridicule the national media. Hence, I assume, targeting Ekklesia instead.

Randall Hardy then moves onto the next fundamentalist creationist trick “We are good guys” and how unreasonable people are to “us”. To quote: “Whilst Creation Research welcomes invitations to speak in schools and universities, we do not “target” them or any other institutions”.

Really? In 2002 Creation Ministries bragged that it was targeting every academic in the UK to see what their views were.

Sadly, Randall Hardy must have a definition of target that this author is not aware of. What he is trying to say is that Mackay’s visit to the UK is solely a result of requests, not a managed event to have maximum impact. Managed it is; Hardy is one of the managers. The target is people (including children) who it thinks will be amenable to its proselytising. That includes those in schools and universities.

Now, here is the biggest lie of the lot: “Unlike the British Humanist Association we are not involved in a political campaign.” Randall missed out the word “yet” turning a statement into a breach of the Ninth Commandment (indeed, twice, so – see below).

Note how Randall Hardy carefully associates the BHA with politics in contrast to he own squeaky-clean outfit. The fundamentalists in the USA want to take over the state.

In contrast, the BHA is a registered charity and is therefore prevented by law from being involved in political campaigns, a fact that Hardy has either overlooked or ignored. In either case, he has managed to add a second breach of the ninth commandment in a single sentence.

Having given up his past attacks on the media for being atheistic, Randall Hardy now carefully tries to lead the reader into believing that the real opposition are the atheists at the NSS (a single-issue organisation whose aims are supported by many Christians) and the BHA.

“On April 6^th, the Blackpool Citizen carried a lead story entitled, “Debate about creation”. This followed up contact from one of its readers, who had heard that John was to visit a local school. Approximately 3 hours after that story appeared on their web site, we were contacted by The Observer newspaper seeking further details. What should be of interest to all is that their reporter had been alerted to Blackpool Citizen’s story by an email circulated by the National Secular Society. The Observer published its story on April 9^th and since then our UK office has received numerous enquiries from the media about John Mackay’s visit, along with requests to interview him.”

So, there it is folks, the wicked NSS sent round an email pointing out a press report in a free newspaper. How unreasonable of them. Obvious troublemakers.

Hardy moves on: “…over those years there has been a sustained campaign against the British government’s education policies with regard to academy schools and “faith schools”. It has been convenient to those conducting that campaign to ridicule Christians, and creationists in particular, in an attempt to change that policy.”

Note also how Hardy carefully tries to include all Christians as well as fundamentalists as being onside to his views. Never mind that the mainstream denominations oppose his scientific hocus-pocus or that the Anglican clergy in Lancashire have (in their own words) “hit the roof” over Mackay’s teaching in state schools there.

Then there is the outright smearing: “We are however concerned that secular groups are seeking to prohibit open debate in any part of society, particularly by censorship through ridicule.” No evidence is being presented that these (unnamed) secular groups are “seeking to prohibit open debate”, just the innuendo that Hardy is “concerned” that they are. It’s neither a statement that they are or they could be. It’s just a nasty piece of rhetoric that secularists intend to close down all open debate everywhere. It’s called a lie.

It’s the martyrdom complex again – how unreasonable the world is in treating fundamentalists.

Then Hardy goes on to suggest that the press can meet Mackay on the 24^th April (three days after he starts his tour – are those the three days when he teaches in Lancashire?). So why not just tell the journalists today the name of the school? Why wait 12 days (no explanation given)? It’s easily done today, on the web, and won’t take up Mackay’s valuable time in his busy itinerary. End Report.

• This report provides a background primer on John Mackay, his organisation and his 2006 “tour” of the UK. It is intended for public consumption and may be quoted freely but with the proviso that the name of its author, Roger Stanyard, is mentioned. He retains copyright
  • William J. Bennetta is a professional editor, a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences, the president of The Textbook League, and editor of The Textbook Letter.

Appendix 1 Press Release by CR UK - 12^th April 2006