AIG: The Battle of Worldviews

In case you don’t know what we’re dealing with, here’s a good lesson from Answers in Genesis (AIG), which is part of the creationist empire of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), along with the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

AIG’s article is How Can We Stand on Scripture in an Evolution-Pushing Culture? It’s rather long, and we’ll have to skip most of it. We’ll give you just enough to encourage you to click over there to read it all. Here we go, with bold font added by us:

The battle is raging between Satan, the usurper, and Jesus Christ, the Creator. The prizes in this battle are the hearts and minds (and ultimately the eternal souls) of our children and grandchildren. Yet few understand the nature or manner in which the battle is being waged.

Yes, dear reader, the battle is raging. And AIG thinks you’re on Satan’s side. Furthermore:

Ken Ham clearly identified the problem nearly 25 years ago. He wrote, “There is a war going on in society — a very real battle. The war is Christianity versus humanism, but we must wake up to the fact that, at the foundational level, it’s really creation versus evolution.”

That’s rather clear. Let’s read on:

In this battle of ideas between creation and evolution, one of the central defining issues is the age of the earth. Many battles have been fought over the interpretation of the scientific evidence as well as the interpretation of the Bible itself regarding this issue. Because we are not teaching science to our children from the biblical worldview, our children are succumbing to science teaching from the secular humanist worldview.

Why do we care about their battle? Here’s why:

People need to understand that evolution is a worldview teaching man got here without God being involved. Creation is a worldview about how man got here through the Creator God. Both are ideas about origins going in opposite directions. These ideas have consequences because a person’s worldview influences every decision he makes. When comparing these two worldviews and the behavior that result from them, a stark contrast emerges. Evolution is the foundation of humanism. Genesis is the foundational book of God’s Word, the Bible. When people believe there is no accountability for their actions, they tend to act quite differently from those who believe there are consequences for their actions (we admit that all of us, including Christians, often fail to live up to God’s standards).

At that point in the AIG article (only about half-way through it) they insert the graphic that we placed at the top of our post. Then they go on, explaining why all of science is wrong. After that they say this:

Today, we are seeing the consequences of evolutionary teaching. When you teach generation after generation of children they are nothing more than evolved animals, why should it surprise us when they begin to act like animals? When we teach there is no accountability, we should not be surprised to see large increases in school violence, lawlessness, homosexual behavior, pornography, abortion, and many other destructive behaviors.

We posted about that a while back: But They’ll Behave Like Monkeys! As with all long-refuted creationist arguments, we don’t need to say any more about it.

Additional excerpts are unnecessary because you can click over to AIG and read it all for yourself. Go ahead and do so. You won’t find a better description of what goes on in the minds of creationists. Nor will you find a clearer reason for avoiding debates with such people. They cannot be persuaded by evidence because it comes from the devil. They are motivated by other things.

Copyright © 2011. 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

18 responses to “AIG: The Battle of Worldviews

  1. Dogma / Science
    Ignorance / Intelligence
    Repression / Freedom
    Indoctrination / Education
    Myth / Evidence
    Hate / Tolerance
    Creation / Evolution

  2. Act like animals? You mean like Mama Kat who takes care of her kittens and licks their widdle heads? Oh, Hambo must mean like the blackbirds who sit on the telephone wire and all scoot over an inch or so when a member of the flock comes in to roost. Or maybe old Hambo means like the ants who work together to build their little cities, or the butterflies who spread pollen in my garden. Hmmmm, maybe Hambo means animals like the herds of zebra or wildebeast who graze peacefully and surround their young to protect them.

    I wonder what kind of animal old Hambo thinks we’ll act like?

  3. The only excerpt we need: “In this battle of ideas between creation and evolution, one of the central defining issues is the age of the earth.”

    Nothing any “Darwinist” can say scares the Discoveroids more than that. For 20+ years they have been trying to squelch any debate over the age of the earth or of key events in the history of life.

  4. Doc Bill: “I wonder what kind of animal old Hambo thinks we’ll act like?”

    I have an inordinate fondness for autotrophs. Oops, dinner time. Gotta go photosynthesize.

  5. Ham’s “Christian world view” was created by humans just as much as any non-religious “world view”. People invented God, not the other way around. The only difference between Ham’s (man-made) world view vs. a modern humanist world view is that Ham’s is 2,000+ years old and very primitive.

    Modern democratic societies, with all their problems, are vastly more humane, ethical, and moral than the societies of the bible.

    Apparently Ham believes the only constraint on behavior is fear of eternal punishment. Maybe we should be careful about arguing with him – what if someone managed to convince him that evolution was true? We might release a monster.

  6. I wonder what kind of animal old Hambo thinks we’ll act like?

    You know, the scientific kind. Like a talking snake, a whale that can support human life inside its stomach for three days, or a staff that can change into a serpent. Nothing mythical like evolved species, mind you.

  7. If people who believe that they will have to account for their actions in the afterlife behave more morally, then two things:

    1. Why have so many evil actions been driven by religious motivation? (I’m not going to rehearse the examples… to many to mention…)

    2. This implies that believers behave morally only because of the fear of God’s punishment, not because they want to do the right thing themselves.

    The illogic of the “morality-from-God” position is consistent with Ham’s (and other creationists’) denial of basic reality and evidence. There is massive, overwhelming evidence in many fields of science for evolution – from linguistics to ethology to genetics – and he has to deny this to keep going. Just as he has to deny the evidence that morality evolved along other survival strategies. We can see elements of basic group morality in our closest cousins, like the bonobos. They believe in God too, or…?

  8. About acting like animals – or monkeys –
    There is no doubt that the human body is very much an animal body, and more similar to the bodies of chimps and other apes than it is to any other living animal.
    So the question arises why that is so.
    Is it just a matter of coincidence? Or is it the result of the operation of natural processes? Because, for example, of processes of genetics, reproduction, and evolution? Processes which operate independently of values, morality, or planning?
    Or are we designed that way for some purpose?
    On the one hand, if it’s just a matter of ancestry, that humans share ancestry with chimps, then it’s something like our sharing ancestry with people like Torquemada, and there is no reason to think that it means that we ought to behave like our distant cousins.
    But if we are designed this way for a purpose, then we ought to follow the purposes that our designer(s) had in mind, and “act like animals”.

  9. I wonder if all the people in all the non-Christian nations all over the planet “act like animals”…. yup. They act like the primate homo sapiens.


  10. Frank J mentioned it, the one behavior which is the signature of being an animal is eating other living things: heterotrophy. But there are some non-animals which are heterotrophs. Two other things which seem to be behaviors of nearly all animals (and nearly no non-animals) are motility, moving themselves at some stage of life, and learning (sponges being the only exception?).

  11. Sponges are motile in the larval stage. I think animals are eukaryotic, lacking cell walls, and motile at some stage of development, but certainly there might be exceptions.

  12. magpie61 :
    “Dogma / Science
    Ignorance / Intelligence…etc.”

    Well put!

  13. The Hamster should be mocked and scorned at every turn. But, by his own clownish words, he does a pretty good job of that himself.

    But, there is no doubt that the man is a genius as wringing money from the purses of the intellectually flaccid, knuckle-dragging rednecks who daily shuffle through his Creation “Museum”.

    What a tool.

  14. They cannot be persuaded by evidence because it comes from the devil. They are motivated by other things.

    Hmm, that happens a lot. Even to some of the nicest people.

    Well, maybe they are worried about the fact that the Theory of Evolution is still very young. After all, it’s only a 150 years old.
    The age of a theory is very important to understanding if one should accept it or reject it.
    Or maybe it’s got nothing to do with it.
    It’s not just about the overwhelming preponderance of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Has it been accepted for centuries or only a few paltry decades? That’s important to consider.
    Or maybe that doesn’t make any sense if you think about it.

    Also, what if you are worried about the consequences if the scientists are right?
    If accepting the science as represented by the peer-reviewed literature means you having to do something that you would not do otherwise, then…question (not reject-just endlessly question until the end of time) the science. Question the motivation of those tricky scientists who want to tell you what to do and make a mad grab for global power.
    People today can’t even smoke on airplanes just because some new-fangled fancy-shmacy science gobbldy-gook made some silly claims about “cancer” and “tobacco”.
    Not that I’m denying the science behind the link between cancer and tobacco. I have no comment to make on that. (The jury is still out, time will tell, yadda, yadda, yadda.)
    I just don’t want to live under totalitarian policies and have people tell me how to spend my own money.
    People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

  15. waldteufel says:

    But, there is no doubt that the man is a genius as wringing money from the purses of the intellectually flaccid, knuckle-dragging rednecks

    “If God did not want them sheared, He would not have made them sheep.”
    — Bandit chief in The Magnificent Seven

  16. “But, there is no doubt that the man is a genius as wringing money from the purses of the intellectually flaccid, knuckle-dragging rednecks.”

    Worth remembering they’re the victims not just of Ham, but of being born into an indoctrinated culture, poor educational standards, etc. etc. Children can grow up to be geniuses or morons, but it’s a case of which is encouraged. Which is not up to the children at the important stage.

  17. @Luke:Children can grow up to be geniuses or morons, but it’s a case of which is encouraged.

    Wow. That’s a statement of faith that blows away any creationists’ tales of talking snakes.

    If there is an eduational program that will turn any child into a genius, no one has yet discovered it.

  18. I never said all children can be geniuses. There is a genius-to-moron spectrum of potential, of course. My point – which I think you might have missed – is that it’s unhelpful and inaccurate to present Ham’s victims as “intellectually flaccid, knuckle-dragging rednecks” as though that explained or even described anything well enough.

    We should remember that in terms of intellectual development many of them may have been severely disadvantaged by the circumstances in which their intellect developed (to whatever extend it did).

    It’s “intellectually flaccid” to convince yourself that victims of fraud, pseudoscience and superstition are where they are intellectually simply because they are somehow inherently gullible or stupid. If all a person has ever known is fundamentalist religion, what outcome do you expect?

    The intellect has to be encouraged to develop, not abandoned to stupidity, then ridiculed for its deficiencies. What will that achieve?