"The Ultimate Proof of Creation" - Debunk

I was introduced to the world of Richard Dawkins and Atheism around a couple of months ago, probably one of targetted readers talked about in The God Delusion, agnostic and tending towards atheism, and I found Dawkins to have provided the most reasoned set of arguments I've ever read so far. I'm still working my way through his books and trying to understand as much as I can about evolution and its implications...

Anyway, onto the post that I wanted to share with you. I ended up reading a chunk of "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" by Jason Lisle this morning from Google Books after being led on by a few links from PZ Myers posts on his visit to the Creation "Museum". The only reason I started reading the book was because the title intrigued me and the fact that the author is an astrophysicist. Put in a nutshell, the objective of the book is to provide christians with information and arguments to rebutt critics of Genesis and Creationism (christianity in general), and most importantly, to do it scientifically. My curiousity was aroused after reading the preface and started flipping through the first few chapters.

One of the sections dealt with how Creationists and Evolutionists are dealing with the same sets of evidence and are drawing different conclusions from them because they are guided by their own separate "worldviews". Here, I came up on a beauty of a statement that probably indicates I shouldn't bother reading anymore:
"Any scientific evidence can be interpreted in such a way as to fit into any given worldview."

For reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=173ipW ... q=&f=false

(Page 28)

Now, I might be biased towards Evolution rather than Creation, but that statement somehow doesn't tie in with the fact that the author is a Scientist himself and he is stating that effectively evidence stands for nothing. I wonder how he plans to use Science to disprove evolution and hail creationism with the rest of the book. If i find any more nuggets like this, I shall put them up,

---

Other nugget:

"The ultimate proof of creation is this: If biblical creation were not true, we could not know anything!"

Turns out there was no point in looking for any kind of scientific rationale in his argument in the first place. First of all, he considers evidence to be inconclusive as "it can be explained as to fit any worldview" (which does make me wonder what exactly he thinks "science" is?) Also, later he turns the whole argument into "which worldview is the correct one?" and just throws science out the window.

---

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... _again.php

Seems like PZ Myers has come to the same conclusion after listening to Jason Lisle talk on radio