You’re familiar with the work of Jason Lisle, Ph.D., the creationist astrophysicist employed by the ever-growing creationist conglomerate of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo). Hambo is the genius who brought you the website Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the mind-boggling Creation Museum.
We have recently been discussing Jason Lisle’s “Instant Starlight” Paper, Again, but there is so much more to be learned from his writings.
We present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from an article at the AIG website that Jason wrote more than two years ago, but it’s still worth our attention: Darwin — Unwittingly a “Creationist”. Attention-getting title, what? The bold font was added by us:
Evolutionists often attempt to use observational science — arguments from biology, paleontology, geology, or even astronomy — to support their belief. But the really interesting thing is that they base all their arguments on principles that ultimately come from biblical creation! As strange as it may sound, evolutionists must unwittingly assume that creation is true in order to argue against it. That means that Darwin was (in a sense) a “creationist.” All evolutionists must borrow the principles of biblical creation in order to do science (even though they would deny this).
That opening paragraph sums up Jason’s position, and everything that follows is his reasoning. Let’s read on:
To do science, certain things must be true. The universe must be logical and have some organization to it. Moreover, the human mind must be capable of rational thought — capable of considering the various alternatives and then choosing the best. But if evolution were true, then we would have no reason to expect either of these conditions. If this world were nothing but a cosmic accident, if our brains were nothing but rearranged pond scum, then why would they be able to understand the universe?
We’ve posted before about why the universe contains organization. We said:
Such regularities — or scientific laws — are observed because everything that exists has specific characteristics and acts accordingly — e.g., an electron always acts like an electron, and not a neutron. The laws of nature are an inevitable corollary of existence itself — not a capricious afterthought.
But who cares what your Curmudgeon thinks? His brain is just “rearranged pond scum.” We’ll continue with Jason’s article:
On the other hand, a biblical creationist has every reason to expect scientific inquiry to be possible. The Bible teaches that God made the universe and the human mind, so we would expect these two things to “go together.”
Except in those unfortunate instances where the bible is in conflict with what our minds have learned about the universe. Here’s more:
Logical reasoning itself only makes sense in a biblical worldview. To make a logical argument about anything, we have to use laws of logic. But if the universe is just matter in motion (as many evolutionists believe), laws of logic wouldn’t exist since laws of logic are not made of matter.
God is our standard for correct thinking because all truth is in Him. We can know about laws of logic because God has made us in His image and has revealed some of His thoughts to us in His Word.
Yea, verily, so it is written in the Book of Aristotle. Jason’s paragraph continues:
We can expect laws of logic to be universally true and never change because they stem from the nature of God. So, when evolutionists such as Charles Darwin attempt to use science and logic, they reveal the fact that in their heart of hearts they know the God of creation.
There you go. Just as promised — Darwin was a creationist. But Jason isn’t done yet. Here’s another excerpt:
Additionally, evolutionists believe in a moral code: a standard for how we should think and behave. But the idea of a moral code goes back to biblical creation. Since God has created us, He has the right to set the rules of behavior. In fact, the Bible tells us that the law is written on our hearts. However, if people were just complex chemicals and our decisions were just chemical reactions, then people wouldn’t have any genuine choice in what they do.
That’s why we always see intellectual integrity at creationist websites. On with the article:
This doesn’t mean that evolutionists don’t act morally, but those who reject biblical creation have no ultimate basis for their morality. So when evolutionists tell us how to think or behave, they are acting as if they believe in creation.
The fact that evolutionists believe in science, rationality, and morality is inconsistent with their professed belief in evolution.
From Darwin to Dawkins, all evolutionists have relied upon their suppressed knowledge of the God of creation — as evidenced by their belief in science, logic, and morality.
There’s more of the same in Jason’s article — much more. If you like that sort of thing, click over there and read it all. We’ve exhausted our patience, so we’re going to quit here.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.