They’re answering the mail at Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. AIG is the online creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia.
Our last post in this series (in which AIG responds to questions) was Young Earthism Is and Is Not Optional. In that one, they explained to a questioner that AIG’s bizarre belief in young-earth creationism both is and is not essential to their version of Christianity, and that this fine example of creationist doublethink isn’t contradictory.
AIG’s offering today is Feedback: Get the Message Across. The question to which AIG responds is a long one, which they answer sentence-by sentence. We’ll deal with it that way, showing the question in blue font and AIG’s response in normal font (with bold added by us for emphasis and scripture references omitted). Also, to make it more entertaining for us, we’ll insert our own imaginary AIG responses in red font. This is how it starts:
I believe in God and was raised a Lutheran. However, I am open to other religious thought, because no one can claim to know the true nature of God and how the earth was created.
Greetings. I’m glad to know that you believe in God; however, being “open to other religious thought” is directly opposed to clear teachings in God’s Word. Jesus unambiguously stated that He is the only way to the Father, and that anyone who did not believe in Him is condemned already [scripture quote]. … Why do you say no one can claim to know the true nature of God and how the earth was created? Surely God, who is all-knowing, would know how to reveal Himself to His own creation. … In [Genesis references] the Lord told us that He made everything in six days. Why would you reject God’s revelation of Himself and the truth in His Word? [You're headed for the Lake of Fire!]
Then the question gets more provocative:
I believe that your strict views of creationism are archaic, ignorant of what god has revealed to us through science and technology (which God also created), and the Christian equivalent of the Taliban.
You are certainly entitled to your beliefs [at least for now] , but if this is merely your opinion, then your claims are simply arbitrary. Do you have any rational reason for claiming these things? [We really hate your guts!] Also, you are employing several logical fallacies in your claims. First, you made an appeal to emotion by calling us “the Christian equivalent of the Taliban.” This is also a form of ad hominem attack known as ad metum (“appeal to fear”) — instead of dealing with our arguments in a calm, respectful, rational manner, you have chosen to make personal attacks and appeal to the fear people have about a society run by the Taliban. Next, you have used loaded words (archaic and ignorant), and engaged in the fallacy of chronological snobbery by assuming that recent ideas are automatically better than ancient ideas.
Skipping a bit, we come to this:
The Bible cannot be interpreted literally.
Actually, the Bible can be interpreted literally. The real question is, should the Bible be interpreted literally? And the correct answer is that each passage should be interpreted according to the standard principles of interpretation for that particular type of literature. [In other words, we make it up as we go along.]
The questioner persists:
It speaks figuratively and in parables, to people who existed before the discoveries of science and technological advances.
Again, you are exhibiting cultural and chronological snobbery. [We're so happy you'll be burning in hell.] So the people to whom the Bible was originally written existed before there were any discoveries and technological advances? Hardly. The first man born (Cain, Adam’s first child) built a city. Six generations later, some people, obviously through exploration, invention, and experimentation, figured out how to mine ores, extract metals from them, and make musical instruments. Noah built a large ship that survived a year-long,violent Flood. … Your comment was not only a put-down to intelligent people who lived long ago, but it was actually an attack on the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture and the intelligence or integrity of God, who created man and gave him the mandate to study, manage, and rule over the rest of creation. [And we really -- really! -- hate your guts.]
Oh, how AIG must weep when they receive such sinful letters. Here’s more:
You were born after these discoveries, and have no excuse to reject the truths of Gods method and timetable of creation that has been revealed to us through science.
My date of birth is irrelevant because again you are confused about the nature of science, equating technological (operational) science and historical (origins) science. We at AiG don’t have any problems with the technological discoveries of operational science. What we reject are the atheistic assumptions used to imagine the method and timetable of creation. The millions of years of evolution are not a discovery but an invention in the minds of Darwin and many others who attempt to use science to justify their denial of the God who made them. [You'll meet them in hell.]
If we see that fake dichotomy involving “origins science” one more time we’re afraid we might get violent. Anyway, here’s one more part of the question:
Rejection of these discoveries is simply ignorance.
[Just you wait, Darwinist vermin. We'll get you!] We don’t reject true discoveries of science. Not everything that scientists claim to be a “discovery” actually is one. So we reject the conclusions or stories about the past announced by any scientist, if that conclusion or historical reconstruction contradicts the Word of God. Since God has always existed, knows everything, and has told us what He did, we will trust His Word any day over the ever-changing opinions of man.
There’s more. Lots more. But you’ll need to click over to AIG to enjoy it all for yourself.
Now, class, what have we learned? The lesson is this: If you debate a professional creationist, you’ll break your little heart. As we’ve said so often before, any adult creationist is almost certainly a lost cause, and a professional creationists is lost beyond any possibility of recovery — so don’t waste your time.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.