AIG Urges Veterinarians To Reject Evolution

This is from the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. AIG is the online creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia.

We found it in AIG’s News to Note, October 27, 2012 — “A weekly feature examining news from the biblical viewpoint.” It’s the fifth item at their news summary, titled “Editorial exhorts veterinarians and physicians to embrace evolution..” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and their scripture references omitted:

One Health is a joint initiative started in 2007 by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Medical Association to encourage cooperation between medical professionals who care for animals and for people. Recognizing not only the similarities between humans and many animals but also their frequently shared interaction with disease-causing organisms, One Health seeks to foster interdisciplinary collaboration to meet these challenges. Its goal is to improve “the lives of all species—human and animal—through the integration of human medicine, veterinary medicine and environmental science.”

That seems like a worthy objective. To the creation scientists at AIG, however, it’s a call to blasphemy. They’re outraged! But the real virtue of their rant is that in opposing the acceptance of evolution by veterinarians, they provide us with what seems to be a fairly complete catalog of their objections to evolution. Therefore, we’ll skip the veterinary angle and give you their general objections. Here we go:

Raising the iconic claim that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution,” they add:

[AIG quotes One Health:] It is because of common ancestry that all living things have shared metabolic functions and respond in similar ways to pathogenic agents. … The fact that diverse organisms respond to similar pharmacologic treatments is testament to common ancestry … .

Only by understanding the evolutionary relationships among critical organisms (birds, pigs, viruses, and humans in the flu pandemic) will we be able to apply appropriate surveillance and develop specific vaccines and treatment. Veterinarians are critical to such efforts and must be at the forefront of progress in preventing the next worldwide pandemic.

That sounds reasonable. But not to AIG. Now they present their catalog of objections, starting with this:

The writers demonstrate a number of misconceptions. By assuming as incontrovertible fact their worldview-based belief in common evolutionary ancestry for all life, they embrace an idea that lacks (and always will lack) experimental confirmation. Historical (origins) science — since it deals with events in the unrepeatable, untestable past — cannot be examined with controlled scientific tests.

Right! Historical science is worthless because those infernal evolutionists can’t recreate the entire biosphere in the lab. Let’s read on:

The writers insist that evolution from a common ancestor is the only explanation for shared biology between humans and animals. Thus they ignore the fact that life has never been shown to randomly emerge from nonliving elements — an event demanded by their evolutionary principles in violation of biology’s fundamental law of biogenesis (the fact that life only comes from life).

The ultimate origin of life is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, and the “fundamental law of biogenesis” is a creationist fiction. We continue:

They also ignore the fact that science has failed to demonstrate a mechanism by which new genetic information to fuel increasingly complex development can be acquired through random natural processes.

Wrong again. The development of what they call “new information” is often demonstrated (see ICR: Full Blown Reality Denial). Here’s more:

Furthermore, the writers fail to acknowledge that common design by a common designer — which we understand to be the Creator God — explains the unifying principles of biology, such as metabolic similarities and similar responses to pathogens. A common designer (God) who created all living things to live in the same world would sensibly design principles of biochemistry suitable for all. A common designer would also sensibly employ useful designs and modified versions of those designs to create many kinds of living things.

Right — everything explained by evolution can also be explained by magic, so it makes sense to go with magic. Moving along:

Science has never shown how matter through random natural processes could produce genetic information. Our infinitely intelligent and eternally living Creator is the source for all the genetic information that directs the development of every living creature.

They’re repeating themselves. Okay, here’s an additional example of “new information” arising from evolution: How One Gene Becomes Two Different Genes. Another excerpt from AIG:

The writers treat the acceptance of a common designer — “blind faith in constructs (e.g., intelligent design)” — with unjustified contempt, saying it “leaves us without the demonstrably efficacious tools of rationality and science.” Yet the evolutionary faith to which they cling and to which they would compel others represents only their own determination to “not allow a Divine Foot in the door.” With blind faith in naturalism, evolutionists concoct just-so mythological stories to explain the origin of living creatures.

Did you get that? The theory of evolution, backed by 150 years of research and evidence, is “blind faith” in “just-so mythological stories.” When you contrast that with creationism, you can see that creationism is infinitely more acceptable. Therefore, if your dog gets sick, use creationism to cure him. Just give Fido some Garden of Eden pills that were discovered on the wreck of Noah’s Ark and everything will be fine. On with the article:

Actually, mistaken belief that evolutionary ancestry left people with useless vestigial organs has historically blinded medical science to some truths about the important functions of some anatomical structures, including the thymus, the appendix, and the pineal gland.

Right again. Thanks to creation science, we finally understand these things. We’ll have to skip a bit … oh, this is good:

Creation scientists recognize natural selection as an observable process that acts on existing genetic material, including horizontally transferred genes. Natural selection, however, has nothing to do with evolution of new kinds of organisms. Utilizing genomic analysis to fight microbial pathogens, interpreting epidemiological data, and developing vaccines have nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution. Nothing about a creationist belief blinds scientists to the tools and understanding needed to deal with disease.

In a primitive sense, that’s true. A creationist practitioner can lance a boil — even if he thinks it was caused by the devil. And now we come to the end:

“Understanding evolutionary biology” will not help relieve the burden of disease on the planet. And frankly, if the dollars and efforts invested in trying to prove the “facts” of an evolutionary past were instead invested in addressing the pathological problems of the present, perhaps we would be “lessening the burden of disease” a little more effectively.

A noble call to ignorance. The physicians of ancient of Babylonia would probably agree.

Copyright © 2012. 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 “AIG Urges Veterinarians To Reject Evolution

  1. When I first started reading this I got a laugh from reading about Ken Ham. Now, however, I can’t help but feel as if I am exploiting a crazy person’s illness for my own entertainment. Am I a bad person?

  2. “A common designer would also sensibly employ useful designs and modified versions of those designs to create many kinds of living things.”

    Seems to be putting words in the creator’s mouth, yes? Since we’ve invented the concept of a deity, it’s only natural we know exactly what that deity is thinking and how it’s supposed to act to benefit us.

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    I think vets do enough to support creationist stories by having Noah’s Ark wallpaper and paintings in their offices. Doesn’t mean they have to actually believe it.

  4. “I think vets do enough to support creationist stories by having Noah’s Ark wallpaper and paintings in their offices.”

    Wasn’t that one of Ken Ham’s big sins?

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    Your right, Justin. Then they got what they deserved in this latest piece from the AIG. It’s not enough to give up the silly evolution thing, you’ve also got to toe the line to the AIG version of things.

  6. And frankly, if the dollars and efforts invested in trying to prove the “facts” of an evolutionary past were instead invested in addressing the pathological problems of the present, perhaps we would be “lessening the burden of disease” a little more effectively.

    Ham, no scientist is trying to prove evolution. That was done long ago. You can also rest assured no one is spending money trying to prove continental drift, or that the sun and moon cause tides.

  7. So let’s look at this:

    -they complain about how “evolutionists” just assume that they are the ones who are right, while quoting ONE guy talking about that “divine foot in the door” while conveniently not mentioning that they have that little statement of faith that they all have to agree to where they have to promise to never accept anything but a literal acceptance of genesis despite what the evidence looks like.

    -they go on and on about how no new “information” can be produced in biology while ignoring among other things* the info that the S.C. linked to in this very article.

    *scroll down to JOHN SANFORD’S GENETIC ENTROPY AND THE MYSTERY OF THE GENOME

  8. AIG BS:
    “Understanding evolutionary biology” will not help relieve the burden of disease on the planet. And frankly, if the dollars and efforts invested in trying to prove the “facts” of an evolutionary past were instead invested in addressing the pathological problems of the present, perhaps we would be “lessening the burden of disease” a little more effectively.
    Maybe if churches and all those other “ministries” were to pay their bloody taxes that would help even more, eh?

    Even better, how about all the tax breaks that Ham’s “ark park” is getting, at the expense of real education in Kentucky.

  9. I think that the vet association should respond with an article titled ” Creationist hate pets”.

  10. You know you’ve reached new depths
    of creationist stupid when they’re
    attacking medicine and the healing of the sick.
    Creationist Voo Doo Clinic coming November 2012.