You’ll be happy to know that we have more wisdom to tell you about from Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the flagship website of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian creationist who brought you the mind-boggling Creation Museum.
Today we present what purports to be Chapter 2 in some kind of book being promoted by AIG. Like the first chapter, which we discussed here: Answers in Genesis Explains Science to Us, this thing is written by Roger Patterson. We can’t find much information about him, except that he’s a creationist author.
So let’s take a look at Chapter 2: The Big Bang? It’s rather long, and like most creation science material, it’s no fun to read. What we’re going to do is skim through it and pluck out a few excerpts that appeal to us. We added the bold font. Here we go:
The big bang is the model that a majority of evolutionary scientists believe best explains the origin of the universe. This is why the textbooks present the big bang model as the history of the universe. … The big bang and the Bible are not compatible in the order of events or in the timescale. Attempting to fit scientific ideas into Scripture rather than applying biblical thinking to science leads to compromise and undermines the authority of Scripture.
That’s the problem, isn’t it? Let’s read on:
Throughout history there have been many views on the origin of the universe.
Yes, but all the early attempts to describe the origin of the universe were — shall we say — handicapped by a lack of anything but naked-eye observation. Unfortunately, we didn’t evolve the sensory equipment to observe anything but an extremely narrow segment of the electromagnetic spectrum. That was an unfortunate oversight of the intelligent designer, but we’ve recently overcome it. The development of science changed everything. We continue:
It is important to start this discussion with the understanding that the big bang model was developed using naturalistic and uniformitarian principles. We defined naturalism in chapter 1 as a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance. So if the big bang is a naturalistic model then there can be no room for intervention by a Creator. The big bang model is supposed to describe the creation and evolution of the universe by natural laws alone.
Then he talks about “uniformitarianism,” which he defines as “the doctrine that present-day processes acting at similar rates as observed today account for the change evident in the universe.” As an example he says:
It is assumed by secular scientists that radioactive decay has always occurred at a constant rate. … Using these assumptions, secular scientists believe that meteorites that fall to earth give the best age of the earth since they formed at the same time. … When you add the assumption of naturalism to the origin of the universe as we know it, you are building a model on multiple unprovable assumptions.
Yes, unprovable assumptions. Those scientists are just making it up as they go along. Isn’t it odd that they keep coming up with useful results? Well, never mind that. To show how silly those secular scientists are, he says:
There is one major problem with this from the uniformitarian view — the known laws of physics fail to describe how the singularity could exist. The idea of cause and effect also fails as there is no known explanation for the cause of the singularity or the cause of the “explosion” that allegedly formed the universe. Scientists who accept that the universe was formed from the big bang must believe that their assumptions are true. Therefore, it is a matter of faith to accept that the universe began as an infinitely small point.
Well, it’s true that we really don’t know what caused the Big Bang. On the other hand, we have a great deal of evidence that it happened. For the moment, that will have to suffice. Any exploration of events prior to the Big Bang is going to be … well, difficult. Here’s more:
Contrary to both naturalistic and uniformitarian assumptions, the Bible clearly teaches a supernatural and rapid origin of the universe. Genesis 1:1 describes the beginning of time, matter, and space with the phrase “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Because this process is supernatural, secular scientists reject that this description of the origin of the universe can be called scientific. Such a claim is unwarranted since there is nothing in science that requires all explanations to be naturalistic.
There’s a lot more to the scientific rejection of supernatural agencies then an arbitrary “requirement” that explanations be naturalistic. Scientific explanations need to be comprehensible, which supernatural explanations can never be. They must also be supported by verifiable evidence. Does the author worry about any of that? No, not really. Moving along:
Secularists claim that the biblical model is based on faith, not on observable, repeatable, testable claims. However, the big bang is also based on faith. The original conditions of the big bang cannot be observed, tested, or repeated by humans and neither can the creation of the universe by God. However, we do have an eyewitness account of the creation of the universe recorded for us by the Creator.
Okay, we’re only about one-third of the way through this thing and it’s becoming quite tedious. Also, you can see where it’s going. Here’s our final excerpt:
When we look carefully at the beginning assumptions (presuppositions) of those who believe in the big bang and those who believe that God created the universe, we see that it all comes down to where you place your faith. We have the same facts to look at, but the starting assumptions are different. Because we start with different assumptions, we will arrive at different conclusions.
That’s a good place for us to stop. But don’t let us discourage you. Go ahead and read it all. Who knows, you might learn something. If you do, please let us know.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
And what proves the Bible?
Gary asks: “And what proves the Bible?”
The proof is that it gives a true account of the origin of the universe, you ninny!
and round and round we go.
In my opinion, the money quote is at the end:
Pretty much explains it all.
That’s the thing…. if they are going to be radically skeptical about the facts of the universe that science gives mountains of evidence for, then it is completely ridiculous and asinine to *not* be radically skeptical about the claims that religion makes *with NO evidence*!!!!
These people never took Logic 101 did they?
For what reason would radioactivity suddenly act in ways that it never has before over the last 150 years of observation? Is gravity suddenly going to push us up instead of down? What reason would certain animal fossils only ever appear in certain rock layers?
The simple answer is that they just don’t WANT to accept the evidence. They have a burden-of-proof level for science that is so ridiculously high as to be meaningless, but they’ll believe Goddidit just because…. with no real evidence whatsoever.
That’s just stupid. I’m sorry if that’s offensive, but it is. It’s STUPID.
😡
LRA says:
Enjoy the Lake of Fire, my dear.
I think the comedian Rick Reynolds said it the best. He was talking about a relative of his who was a born-again Christian. At one point, this relative asked Rick, “Rick, don’t you want to go to the Kingdom of Heaven?” Rick’s reply was, “No! You’ll be there!“
Heaven for climate, Hell for society Mark Twain.
“Enjoy the Lake of Fire, my dear.”
Can’t be worse than Texas in August.
😀
Unless and until the DI and it’s big tent scam, goes away completely I’ll be bored with anything AiG has to say. But what caught my eye on this one was how, just like the DI they start out pretending that only “atheist materialist ‘Darwinists'” disagree with them, when they know very well that other creationists do as well, and that’s very, very inconvenient for their scam.
Specifically I see them starting out with how “a majority of evolutionary scientists” think the big bang is the model that best explains the origin of the universe. Forgive me for not boring myself with the rest of the article, or other AiG rants, but can someone tell me if they admit what other creationists not only accept the BB, but think that it’s evidence for a Creator?