AIG and ICR React to Rubio and Robertson

You already know the background for this. If not, take a moment to look at Marco Rubio and Creationism and also Pat Robertson: Earth Older Than 6,000 Years.

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.

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

33 responses to “AIG and ICR React to Rubio and Robertson

  1. Here we go again!

    Our greatest weapon is Ridicule … and mockery!

    No, our greatest TWO weapons are Ridicule, Mockery and Insults!

    Three! Three! Our greatest three weapons are Ridicule, Mockery, Insults and the comfy chair.

    Wait, can we do this again?

  2. Aha! You have been unmasked, SC. Get thee behind me, Curmudgeon.

  3. The ICR unblushingly claims

    the scientific data overwhelmingly favor a young age for the earth

    No added ridicule is needed.

  4. retiredsciguy

    Aw, crap, Megs — you beat me to it!

  5. Grum presents the AiG drinking game!

    * Take a shot every time you read the phrase “millions of years”.

    * Take two shots if the phrase is used in a sentence where it doesn’t make grammatical sense.

  6. AiG and ICR seem to be on the defense lately. Maybe it was seeing the far right social values candidates take a drubbing in the election, then Pat Robinson’s comments, and Marco Rubio walking his comments back. And of course the popularity of Bill Nye’s remarks. They must feel besieged.

    How sweet it is.

  7. For some time I have quietly suspected that I might secretly be a canabalistic Gay Abortionist Satan worshiper. It’s such a relief now that the secret is out.

  8. Tomato Addict says: “For some time I have quietly suspected”

    We never had any doubts about the way you are.

  9. Ceteris Paribus

    @TA: Yes, yes, of course. We already surmised all that from your posts. What we really want to know is, are you a closet (neo-)Darwinist?

  10. Oh dear, here we go again and Megalonyx’s quote beat me to the punch too retiredsciguy. I think Hambo comes from Queensland where other creationists are based (CMI). Must be all the bananas they grow up there. Glad I’m in the south and sorry you have Hamfisted now.

  11. Well gee Morris. Perhaps the Bible is a religious text rather than the “inerrant Word of God ” that forces you to be such a lying sleazebucket about science and out of step with mainstream Christianity. Just a thought. Dumber than a box of hammers, a metaphor that was created for a reason.

  12. “Ridicule is Satan’s weapon. What a coincidence. It’s also your Curmudgeon’s weapon. Could it be …?”

    Guess that makes all of us who appreciate this blog Satan worshipers, not just you, TA.

  13. Ceteris Paribus said:

    @TA: Yes, yes, of course. We already surmised all that from your posts. What we really want to know is, are you a closet (neo-)Darwinist?

    “Neo”? Uh, no. He’s not “neo” anything. He’s a full-blown canabalistic Gay Abortionist Satan worshiper Darwinist.

  14. Charles Deetz ;)

    I know everyone latched on to this quote “the scientific data overwhelmingly favor a young age for the earth”, it just amazes me that they think this. My favorite, easiest counter to YEC is about starlight. I’d love to know the scientific data they’ve got on this, I’m ready to be overwhelmed!

  15. Charles Deetz ;)

    And Hammy’s made him an even easier target by deciding that feathered dinosaurs is a problem for him. Because they definitely existed. And he has to know that, which may be another reason why the increasing shrillness.

  16. Charles, if they think about it at all, they probably think the light was itself created in mid-space 6,000 light-years away from earth.

  17. @retiredsciguy

    I’m not a scientist but came across this huge article (from “scientific” CMI) and in the second paragraph…

    “the speed of light was enormously faster around Creation Week”

    Right. After a few more minutes of reading, I just gave up and started preparing dinner. More bananas.

  18. IMHO, the problem is not presenting scientific evidence for a “young earth”, but in spelling out in some detail just what happened. Other than creating the universe just as it today, but with the appearance of having had a prior history. For example, what was it like when the “cattle kind” was created? Was there a whole herd of cattle, cows with their calves, chewing their cud? We don’t have to get into fancy stuff like the speed of light.

  19. Tomato Addict: “For some time I have quietly suspected that I might secretly be a canabalistic Gay Abortionist Satan worshiper. It’s such a relief now that the secret is out.”

    According to AiG/ICR “logic” so are the Discoveroids. Still feel relieved? 🙂

  20. Curmudgeon, in the 21 Nov. “Rubio” post:

    No, Rubio didn’t give a non-answer. It was very revealing. Actually, it was an utterly crazy answer, which is exactly the sort of thing we’d expect of a young-earth creationist, or a politician who is shamelessly pandering to them.

    As you can see above, real YEC activists do not play those evasion games. Rather, those are the answers we expect of OECs and closet “evolutionists” who sold out to the big tent scam. Both shamelessly pander to the somewhat less than half of rank-and-file evolution-deniers who are still YECs.

  21. Frank J: “Both shamelessly pander to the somewhat less than half of rank-and-file evolution-deniers who are still YECs.”

    Hey — a vote is a vote. Rubio and other Republican politicians with national aspirations know they won’t get many (if any) Dem votes, so they feel they need to hang on to the YECs while not repelling the rational middle if they want to get past the Republican primaries. They are in a tough situation.

  22. @Carl Segnit: Interesting article from “scientific” CMI that stated “the speed of light was enormously faster around Creation Week”. There’s not one shred of evidence supporting the idea, but hey — God could do anything, right?? It coulda happened, huh?

    (Truth be told, I have a similar problem wrapping my brain around Inflation Theory, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc., but that’s another issue.)

  23. retiredsciguy says: “Truth be told, I have a similar problem wrapping my brain around Inflation Theory, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc.”

    Same here, but there’s one slight difference. Those are attempts to account for observed phenomena, while still remaining within the framework of science that is already understood. That’s in contrast to superfast lightspeed, the sole function of which is to justify some of the wilder parts of Genesis.

  24. Gary: “He’s not “neo” anything. He’s a full-blown canabalistic Gay Abortionist Satan worshiper Darwinist.”

    … and …

    FrankJ: “According to AiG/ICR “logic” so are the Discoveroids. Still feel relieved?”

    That stuff is nothing. I have far far darker secrets.

  25. @Dan: I so, so, sooooooo worry about you.

  26. SC: “Same here, but there’s one slight difference.”

    Agreed, except that it’s a huge difference.

  27. retiredsciguy: “Hey — a vote is a vote. Rubio and other Republican politicians with national aspirations know they won’t get many (if any) Dem votes, so they feel they need to hang on to the YECs.”

    My secondary point is that rank-and-file YECs are a minority of commited evolution-deniers. By most accounts the majority are either OECs, or don’t care about when earth or life began. So if anything, playing “don’t ask, don’t tell” with the “when” questions may avoid risking votes of the latter groups. But even then, probably not many. The main purpose of playing dumb is to change the subject to something they’re more comfortable about.

  28. doodlebugger

    I thought when reading this post, With the mountains of evidence against them, how can any thinking human be a YEC? The answer lies in the resurrection of Jesus. If Genesis isn’t exactly accurate, then maybe the heaven story and the Son of God story isn’t true either. Therefore one must cling fanatically to an inerrancy of the Old Testament. Absolutely no amount of reason and logic is going to sway someone who has been taught that their very existence depends on a steadfast faith and literalism. Wont happen. Its a battle of fear against reason.

  29. @doodlebugger, that’s just what Ken Ham has said, on several occasions.

  30. First, I want to say how very much I enjoy the humor here – y’all make me laugh quite often.

    Charles – about all of the overwhelming evidence about red-shift and other trivia, you haven’t been reading the correct sources. Very detailed answers can be found at places like 6000years.org, creation.com and creationworldview.org. Here is a most convincing ‘evidence’ regarding why starlight actually proves a young earth – ‘the truth about red shift.’

    https://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7

  31. @doodlebugger But the very same people have no problem at all with explaining away other parts of the Bible when they are uncomfortable with the literal meaning. If they didn’t accept the findings of modern science when it comes to the heliocentric model of the Solar System, despite universal agreement for 2000 years that the Bible taught geocentrism, I might let them make that argument. (I’m not going to greedy about this and insist on a flat Earth. There isn’t such a long history for that, and the evidence for heliocentrism is not as accessible as it is for a round Earth … nor for evolution, BTW.)

  32. Gary: “I so, so, sooooooo worry about you.”

    I can’t help it, I was hatched this way.

    retiredsciguy says: “Truth be told, I have a similar problem wrapping my brain around Inflation Theory, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc.”

    Get yourself a chicken hat, and all will become clear.

    Douglas E: “First, I want to say how very much I enjoy the humor here – y’all make me laugh quite often.”

    Creationists are funny. This stuff writes itself.

  33. Charley Horse

    Creationists are funny. This stuff writes itself.
    touché!