Creationism & the Emotional Age of the Earth

We have another article by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the genius who brought you the website Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the mind-boggling Creation Museum.

Hambo’s latest is titled: The Emotional Age Issue. The title is ambiguous, as it might lead you to expect an article about the emotional reactions of children, adolescents, and mature people to certain situations. But that would be wrong. Ol’ Hambo has something quite different to tell us about. It’s … well, stick around and you’ll see. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

In 35 years of ministry, I’ve discovered that the issue of the age of the earth and the universe is an extremely emotional topic for secularists.

Emotional topic? Well, yes — it’s annoying, even exasperating, to encounter young-earthers who insist on teaching their primitive belief in public school science classes. Annoyance and exasperation are certainly emotions, so Hambo is correct. Let’s read on:

For biblical creationists, the age of the earth is an issue that should lead Christians to a different kind of strong emotion: a real zeal for the authority and accuracy of the Word of God.

Okay, we see the emotional conflict. It’s creationist zeal on one side and exasperation on the other. We continue:

This all hit home to me as I watched a startling video clip of famed atheist Richard Dawkins who appeared on the TV program Q & A in my homeland of Australia. Prof. Dawkins, perhaps surprisingly at first, came across as quite tolerant of religious people who believe in evolution. But when it came to the topic of the age of the earth, Dawkins changed his tone dramatically. On the program, he openly mocked those who believe in a young universe and earth (i.e., just over 6,000 years old). Now, he could somehow manage to tolerate religious people as long as they also accepted evolution. But with the age of the earth, that’s different. He scoffs and mocks.

The article provides a link to that “startling video clip” — it’s here, but we haven’t looked at it. Hambo goes on:

I’ve also observed that when the secular media visit our Creation Museum and interview me or other staff, they usually concentrate on asking us questions about the age of the earth — including why we believe dinosaurs lived alongside people. The reporters often act as if it’s ridiculous not to accept the supposed billions of years.

Imagine that! Moving along:

Why is the age of the earth such a big issue with secular scientists and the media? And why is it that after biblical creationists have written so many books and scientific peer-reviewed papers that contradict the supposed billions of years for the age of the earth/universe, and expose the fallible dating methods devised by man, secularists still scoff?

Get that? Creationists “have written so many books and scientific peer-reviewed papers” that Hambo is shocked — shocked! — that “secularists” still scoff. Yes, dear reader, it’s quite a puzzlement. Another excerpt:

Well, here’s the bottom line: For secularists to even postulate the idea of evolution, they have to also postulate an incomprehensible amount of time (billions and billions of years) so that the universe and life might have enough time to evolve. Even with billions of years, though, evolution is impossible. Mathematically and scientifically. But secularists aggressively promote billions of years to make evolution a plausible idea.

Hambo just can’t figure out why the whole educated world scoffs at him. On with the article:

For such scientists, it doesn’t matter how good the creationist research is about the age issue. They have already rejected it before considering it.

Actually, it does matter how good the creationist “research” is. That’s the whole issue, really. Okay, one more excerpt, and then you can click over to AIG to read the entire thrilling article for yourself:

Why are biblical creationists so adamant that the earth is young? It’s because we’re zealous for the Bible, and God’s Word clearly indicates that the earth is thousands, not billions, of years old.

We know that, Hambo. Hey, we’re experiencing a couple of other emotional reactions to the “age of the earth” issue: weary resignation to the existence of creationists, and renewed enthusiasm for keeping creationism where it belongs — way out at the farthest fringe of obsolete beliefs.

Copyright © 2010. 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

10 responses to “Creationism & the Emotional Age of the Earth

  1. The scientific disciplines are dedicated to the rule of empiricism. And generally empiricism does rule the sciences.

    Hambo is shocked that such an expected result should actually have been the outcome. Even after a lot of papers reviewed by his peers have been produced quite contrary to the rule of empiricism.

  2. Watch the video – the question Hambo refers to is at the very beginning, so you can catch the comments and ensuing discussion in only 3-4 minutes. Dawkins does not scoff at all – far from it. He’s clear as to his opinion, but the overall tone of the conversation is pleasant and even humorous. The best part is immediately following Dawkins’ answer when the host attempts to get one of the parliamentarians to state whether he things the earth is young or not. That’s actually far more entertaining than Dawkins rather mild comment.

    I think Hambo is getting a bit sensitive.

  3. The creationists that I’ve known do get highly emotional over the age of the earth. Their explanation for it is that without creation, you have no need for Jesus, and without Jesus, there is no salvation. This disturbs them.

    I suppose that I get worked up when my students aren’t in love with Shakespeare, though.

  4. Their explanation for it is that without creation, you have no need for Jesus, and without Jesus, there is no salvation. This disturbs them.

    That is a non-sequitur if I’ve ever heard one. “No need for Jesus” would imply everyone gets saved, not the reverse.

  5. eric says:

    That is a non-sequitur if I’ve ever heard one. “No need for Jesus” would imply everyone gets saved, not the reverse.

    Have you learned nothing here? It’s the Curse brought on by the sin of Adam & Eve that causes the need for salvation. If Genesis isn’t literally true, then … well, there are problems. There are also problems caused by Noah’s Flood, because that was supposed to cleanse the earth, but apparently it didn’t work. Anyway, it all hinges on Genesis. If that’s only a story, all the rest … I’ll leave it to you to figure out.

  6. So can we expect Ol’ Hambo to take it up with “secularists” like Hugh Ross, Michael Behe and William Demsbki?

  7. Interesting that the Jews, who actually wrote the Torah, never subscribed to the notion of original sin. That is completely a Christian invention. One would think that the authors of the book knew what it meant, but …

  8. If Ol’ Hambo really cared about Jesus as much as peddling pseudoscience he’d stop wasting his time with “secularists,” most of whom are self-described Christians anyway, and try to convert Discoveroids like David Klinghoffer and Michael Medved.

  9. The thing I find odd — perhaps disturbing — about all fighting is the evangelist bent on everything “religious” being spouted. For example, I was taught that Jesus came to abolish original sin. Perhaps I missed something, but it seemed to be implied that meant across the board, as in wiped from the record. Wasn’t that part of the Good News?

    Belief in Him wasn’t mentioned as a requisite to be saved (only that we should, and be grateful for the sacrifice).

  10. Oops! Didn’t fix my first sentence. Try ‘The thing I find odd — perhaps disturbing — is the evangelist bent when self-proclaimed “religious” sources speak.”

    I think that will make more sense. Though admittedly much fighting found its origins in religious misdirection.