Creationist Wisdom #722: Creation Science Fan

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, of Fort Worth, Texas. The title is Creation Science. It’s the first of several unrelated letters at that link, and although the newspaper has a comments feature (with none so far), the comments that do appear could be for any of them.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Charles. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Kathy Miller of the Texas Freedom Network wrote that a biology panel for the state board decided to eliminate “anti-evolution nonsense” that biologists and other experts saw as “based on junk science.”

Charles is referring to this: State Board of Education targets evolution. It’s very good, and it offended Charles. He says:

I would defend what she terms “junk science.” A more proper term is creation science.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, that’s a much better description. Charles begins his defense of creation science:

This science is based on the belief that God created the universe and created all living matter, including people.

That sounds scientific to us! He continues:

People who deny that there is a God have created a mythology of life being created by nature as a simple building block that evolved into more complex structure ending in humans. Miller accepts that as science.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Evolution is mythology and creationism is science. What a great letter! Let’s read on:

In the past 10 years there have been many new books arguing that evolution of life is mathematically impossible. Many scientists have come to realize that there must be a better explanation.

Yes, those are all great books, which is why they’ve persuaded so many “scientists.” Charles’ final paragraph is his best:

Texas has several institutions that contribute to this knowledge. The Institute for Creation Research in Dallas, the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose and many other organizations are working to increase our knowledge.

Charles is a happy man, and his letter is a great addition to our collection.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

ICR: Why the Earth Must Be Young

The creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom — have unintentionally, in one handy article, presented a large catalog of reasons why the bible is inconsistent with reality. There are more reasons than those given in ICR’s article (such as the shape of the Earth and its place in the solar system), but those listed in the article are a good start.

The article is Genesis Compromise Unravels the Bible. It’s by Jake Hebert, described at the end as a “Research Associate” for ICR. They say he has a Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Texas at Dallas. Jake says, with bold font added by us:

Christians who accept millions of years of Earth history may be unaware of the inconsistency of their position. On one hand, they profess to believe the Bible, but on the other they fail to accept Genesis 1–2 as written. They might attempt to dismiss the issue by telling themselves it isn’t that serious. After all, can’t one accept the rest of the Bible as written yet reject the doctrine of a recent six-day creation? Unfortunately, accepting an old earth logically undermines the entire Bible.

From here on, we’re given one problem after another caused by the conflict between the age of the Earth and the bible. The list begins:

If the world’s sedimentary rocks really are millions of years old, then the fossilized remains of plants and animals within those rocks are also millions of years old. These include the fossilized remains of thorny plants. This would imply that thorns were in the world long before the first humans. So, how can thorns be punishment for man’s sin as described in Genesis 3:18?

Gasp! Next problem:

Because fossils are the remains of dead animals and plants, accepting deep time implies that animal death and suffering existed for millions of years before Adam’s sin. Yet God’s description of His original creation as “very good” (Genesis 1:31), the gracious character of God revealed in Scripture (Psalm 145:9), and the fact that God created people and animals originally as vegetarians (Genesis 1:29-30) all imply that the “groaning” now found in nature (Romans 8:20-22) was imposed on it only after Adam’s fall, not before.

Jake is just getting started. Here’s the next item:

Also, these fossils are found in water-deposited rocks all over the world. This would seem to be prima facie evidence for the Genesis Flood, but many Christians naively accept the uniformitarian claim that these rock layers formed slowly over millions of years. But if these water-deposited rocks are not from the Flood event, then it would be only logical to conclude that the Flood never really happened in the first place.

Egad — no Flood! Jake explains why that’s a catastrophe:

But this would imply that the global Flood described in Genesis 6–8 is at best a serious exaggeration of a mere local flood. Yet the apostle Peter affirmed the global nature of the Flood (2 Peter 2:5, 3:6). If Peter was wrong about this, then clearly his writings were not divinely inspired. Yet those same writings testify of the transfiguration and resurrection of Christ (2 Peter 1:16-18; 1 Peter 3:18). So was Peter wrong about those events too?

Aaaargh!! It’s all falling apart! But wait — there’s even more:

The millions-of-years view also impugns the testimony of Christ. The Lord Jesus Himself clearly believed in both a recent creation (Mark 10:6, 13:19; Luke 11:50-51) and the historicity of the Genesis Flood (Luke 17:26-27). If He was wrong about such things, then how can He be the Son of God?

Lordy, lordy — there’s nothing left! Then, when everything is looking grim, Jake turns it all around. He says:

The bad news is that compromise with old-earth ideas logically undermines the entire Bible. The good news is that there is no good reason to believe in an old earth!

Ooooooooooooh — what a relief! At the end of his article, Jake tells us:

The earth is young, the Flood really did occur, and the scientific evidence is consistent with the claims of Scripture. Christians must, and can, stop uncritically accepting agenda-driven claims about Earth history made by secular scientists who deny the existence and revelation of God.

Your Curmudgeon is greatly relieved. We have no doubt that you are too, dear reader.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Ken Ham Tells Us How To Vote

The US Presidential election is little more than a month away, and some of you may be confused about which candidate you should support. Fortunately, help is on the way from the wisest man on the planet.

Yes, we’re talking about Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He’s famed not only for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG), but also for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum, and for building an exact replica of Noah’s Ark.

Hambo’s article is Voting and the Ark. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

How should Christians approach voting in this strategic election? As I thought about the upcoming election, it dawned on me that the reasons we built the life-size Ark in Northern Kentucky are based on the same principles we should apply when we vote.

Uh, we need a bit more information than that. Hambo says:

Christians are to affect the world for good as we apply Christian principles, teach God’s Word, and preach the gospel. We need to remember that, as Christians, we are really citizens of the kingdom of heaven, not the earthly kingdom in which we temporarily live. However, as citizens of a different kingdom, we still should do whatever is possible to affect our present earthly kingdom so that the truth of God’s Word and the saving gospel can impact as many souls as possible.

Yes, of course. Heaven is far more important than national security, the economy, immigration, or any other issue. After some bible references, we’re told:

Noah was righteous before God. His example is a reminder to us today that we all need to judge our hearts and behavior against the absolute authority of the Word of God. When voting, we need to judge candidates against God’s Word.

Right — not the Constitution or any other Earthly standard. Here’s more advice:

We should not vote for someone solely because they are an Independent, Democrat, or Republican. Christians should judge what candidates believe, say, and do against the absolute authority of the Word of God and vote accordingly.

After more bible references, Hambo continues:

God ultimately will determine who becomes the next president of the US. At the same time, Christians need to be responsible citizens and use the legal means at our disposal to put those in power whose beliefs most closely align with the principles in God’s Word.

Right — what we really need is a President who is just like ol’ Hambo! After several paragraphs praising the ark “replica” he built, Hambo closes with this:

Yes, the Bible does come to life at the Ark Encounter, and we are reaching guests with biblical answers and the gospel message. But we need you to join this effort and be salt and light, including casting your vote for those who will allow Christians to have as much religious freedom as possible so we can present biblical truths. Let’s be like Noah and proclaim the truth of God’s Word to this spiritually needy nation.

That was very inspirational, but he didn’t tell us the candidate who is his favorite, nor did he even mention any of their names. We’ll have to watch and see which candidate visits Hambo’s ark. Maybe one of them will. Then we’ll know how to vote. Oh yeah!

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

The Discoveroids and Frankenstein’s Monster

There have been several headlines the last day or so about a human baby conceived from the DNA of three parents. We found an article about it in Nature that you can read without a subscription: ‘Three-parent baby’ claim raises hopes — and ethical concerns. They say:

A reported world-first in fertility therapy — a baby boy conceived with a controversial technique that mixes DNA from three people – has made headlines across the world. But with no way of verifying the claim because the specialists behind the procedure aren’t releasing data until October, some researchers are questioning the ethics of the procedure. In particular, they ask why the US-based team behind the operation chose to carry it out in Mexico, a country with less-clear oversight of human embryo modification than, for instance, the United Kingdom or the United States.

Researchers at the New Hope Fertility Center in New York City told New Scientist — which broke the news on 27 September — that they had conducted the procedure for a Jordanian couple, and that the baby boy was born in April.


[T]he boy’s mother has a rare disease called Leigh’s syndrome, a neurological disorder caused by faulty mitochondria, the cell’s energy-producing structures. The couple lost two children to the disease before asking the clinic’s help.

In an attempt to create embryos without the mother’s faulty mitochondria, the clinic’s team transferred the nucleus of the mother’s egg cell to the egg of a donor with healthy mitochondria — a technique known as spindle transfer — and then fertilized it with the father’s sperm, the team reports in the abstract. Zhang’s team modified five embryos, one of which was implanted into the mother and survived to birth. That baby inherited nuclear DNA from both parents and mitochrondrial DNA from the donor.

You can click over there to read the rest. We hope the baby grows up to be healthy, and that this new procedure may become accepted for use in such cases. But not everyone shares our attitude. For your entertainment, we now give you an example of a different view.

You are about to travel into another reality, a reality not knowable by evidence and reason because it isn’t bound by the laws of nature, but by the wonders of Oogity Boogity! It’s a journey into the realm of miracles and mysticism, where all you need is faith. Oh look — there’s a signpost up ahead. It says: “Welcome to Seattle, Home of the Discovery Institute.” Your next stop — The Drool Zone!

The Discoveroids’ creationist blog features this new post: Three-Parent Baby Shows No Limits to Science Hubris. It’s written by Wesley J. Smith. We don’t hear much from him, but he’s a Discoveroid “Senior Fellow” and a lawyer. His specialty is “Human Exceptionalism,” Discoveroid code for “In His Image.” The bold font was added by us for emphasis:

Fertility doctors have brought a baby to birth from an embryo created artificially with the biological substances of two women and one man. That could be illegal in many places, so the American doctors went to Mexico to do the procedure.


More importantly, what are the potential longterm consequences to this child? We don’t know. Indeed, this child will have to be followed for potential health problems going forward. Even if there is no untoward consequence to the baby — which all should hope — this was unethical human experimentation.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] It was unethical experimentation! Then Wesley says:

The doctors fled to Mexico to flee regulatory oversight. Yet “The Scientists” blame the regulators: [big quote from an article in Science: Unanswered questions surround baby born to three parents]. In other words: Let us do what we want or we will do it anyway!

What scoundrels! How dare they try to give that woman a healthy baby? After that, Wesley ends his post by pronouncing a stern moral judgment upon those who intervene with the designer’s plan:

In truth, those who circumvent the rules should be shunned, not praised. And they expect us to trust them? No.

Society needs to have an important and in-depth debate over how and whether to permit these nature- and potentially family-altering techniques to go forward, and if so, under what circumstances. But instead “The Scientists” presume the right to decide for themselves what is ethical in science. There’s a word for that: hubris.

Ever since the 1818 publication of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, we’ve seen frightened people and their preachers screaming about scientists who dare to “play God” by meddling in the unknown, experimenting in their infernal la-BOR-a-tories, and attempting things that man was not meant to know! And here we see the Discoveroids feeding the fears of the ignorant, playing the role of science censors, and longing for the power to launch a new Inquisition.

We haven’t heard the end of this. For further developments, stay tuned to this blog!

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article