Today we have some reaction from two well-known creationist outfits. First, there’s one from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. As you know, ol’ Hambo is co-founder of Answers in Genesis (AIG) — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page.
Hambo’s essay is Why So Much Traction Regarding Pat Robertson’s Views on Genesis? This isn’t AIG’s first reaction to Robertson’s statement, but it’s the first from ol’ Hambo himself. Last week we posted Answers in Genesis Rebukes Pat Robertson.
Here are some excerpts from Hambo’s rant, with bold font added by us and his links and scripture references omitted. He begins by mentioning what Robertson said, and he makes a big deal of his own comments on Facebook. Then he says:
Why did this incident receive so much traction? After all, this is not the first time Pat Robertson has attacked the biblical, young earth, six-literal-day position on Genesis. For instance, back in 2003 …
That’s a reference to something posted by AIG years ago, which we mentioned in our earlier post. Hambo doesn’t merely link to it, he actually repeats the entirety of that 2003 article. Then he goes on:
So why did his [Robertson’s] recent statements get so much traction on the internet? I believe one of the reasons is because the age of the earth and universe happened to be a headline news item due to the question asked of Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida recently about the earth’s age.
It’s neat how separate news items sometimes seem to coalesce. Let’s read on:
As I have said many times, when it comes to the origins issue, evolution is only a symptom of something deeper — the “disease” is really millions of years. Without millions of years, secularists can’t propose their anti-God evolutionary ideas.
The “disease” of which Hambo speaks is the science of geology. Hambo’s religion opposes that as well as biology. He also opposes physics and astronomy (radiometric dating, the Big Bang, etc.). The rant continues:
Also, secularists know that if someone believes in or even allows for a young earth (consistent with the Bible’s account of history), such a person is more likely to believe in a biblical morality (e.g., accept marriage as being for a man and woman, not man and man, and that abortion would be wrong because it is the killing of a child in its mother’s womb).
Yowie! If you’re not a young-Earth creationist, then you’re likely to be a gay abortionist!
Hambo’s rant goes on and on, but let’s turn now to the granddaddy of all creationist outfits — the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). They’re the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. They just posted Is the Age of the Earth a ‘Side’ Issue? After discussing what Rubio and Robertson said, they tell us where Robertson went wrong. Here are some excerpts, with our bold font and their scripture references omitted:
Dinosaurs were created on Day Six of the creation week along with the other land animals [scripture reference]. Hence, humans would indeed have seen these great “dragons.” In fact, the Bible contains detailed descriptions of two dragon-like animals in [scripture reference]. But making sense of dinosaurs requires accepting God’s Word as it’s written without attempting to blend it with evolutionary and old-earth storytelling. Robertson obviously thinks that proclaiming a straightforward understanding of Genesis is likely to drive children from the Christian faith.
In this instance, Robertson knows what he’s talking about. Here’s more:
But young people can quickly discern intellectual inconsistency, and it is transparently inconsistent to claim to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and also accept an idea of “millions of years” that is not even hinted at in Scripture. This glaring inconsistency may actually make children question Christianity more — not less.
The surest way to make children question their parents’ religion is to insist that it requires reality denial. ICR then babbles about some “evidence” for a young Earth, and then they say:
Christians tempted to dismiss the age of the earth should ask some questions: if this issue isn’t really important, then why the uproar when a well-known person questions an old earth? And why are the enemies of the gospel so eager to marginalize Christians who affirm a young age for the earth?
Uh, maybe it’s because they think they’re crazy. Here’s how the article ends:
The answer is obvious: this issue does matter for a number of reasons. Although the scientific data overwhelmingly favor a young age for the earth, the enemies of the gospel do have a potent weapon in their arsenal: ridicule. No one wants to be ridiculed, and Satan is shrewd enough to use a fear of ridicule to intimidate Christians from believing — and proclaiming — this vital doctrine.
Ridicule is Satan’s weapon. What a coincidence. It’s also your Curmudgeon’s weapon. Could it be …?
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.