AIG: The Superiority of Creation Science

Your humble Curmudgeon likes to think that he has a talent for refuting irrational arguments, but this time we’re overwhelmed by the quantity of raw nonsense in the latest offering from the creation scientists at Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (AIG) — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page.

Their article is Danger No 8: Misinterpretation of Reality. The author is Dr. Werner Gitt. AIG says his specialty is information technology, and that he’s also a renowned evangelist. As for “Danger No 8” in his title, AIG has a numbering system for their propositions, but they’re the only ones who pay any attention to it. Most of Gitt’s article is … well, it’s one of the worst we’ve ever seen, so we’ll be skipping around. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Certain statements which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, should make us prick up our ears:

• “No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another” (R. Dawkins).

• “Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person . . . been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin” (K. Lorenz).

You don’t see anything wrong with those statements? Ah, but if you were a creation scientist you’d know without being told how wrong they are. AIG is going to explain it to you:

Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances? One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics. On the contrary, authors in these disciplines are inclined to comment reservedly on their results.

To begin with, the quotes we’ve been given are probably not in scientific journals, where such prose is inappropriate, but they wouldn’t be out of place in books and articles for a more general audience. Also, we have no doubt that similar expressions are sometimes found in popular writing about other sciences — especially physics, which is obvious to anyone who has ever read anything about Einstein. There’s nothing wrong with that — some ideas deserve high praise.

AIG’s objection to those quotes stems from their claim that evolution requires such assurances — as if it were unrelated to observable reality and is therefore unsupportable without them. But no one requires assurances more than creationists do, because their doctrines are indeed unsupportable in the absence of faith. If you doubt that, check out The Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith. Nothing even remotely comparable exists in the sciences. Okay, let’s read on:

Science-theoretical analysis along the lines of theorems P1 to P10 [references to the deservedly obscure catalog of nonsense maintained by AIG] leads to the conclusion that the “theory of evolution” does not qualify as a scientific theory. Some examples will clarify this statement:

We’ll give you some of their examples, but even your Curmudgeon lacks the fortitude to slog through the whole list:

No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter has ever been observed.

“No natural process”? Uh huh. Except we know about Self-organization, and in biology we also know about gene duplication, followed by mutation of one of the duplicates. We continue:

No transition from one basic kind to another has ever been observed.

Transition between “kinds.” The author is speaking about what creationists call macro-evolution. That is the result of the cumulative effect of a million generations or more of “micro-evolution,” so the gradual progression from one “kind” to another (presumably from reptile to mammal) hasn’t been literally observed in anyone’s lab. But there are Observed Instances of Speciation, and we have the fossil record. No competent observer of all that evidence doubts that such transitions have happened. See also 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

Here’s another example from AIG of why evolution isn’t a scientific theory:

The frequently quoted transitional forms and “missing links” have never been found. All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms.

Once again, we have to link to Wikipedia’s List of transitional fossils. And of course each of those creatures was a completely functional organism. How else could they survive and produce descendants?

We’re running out of steam here. Let’s see if there’s anything else worth bothering with. Aha — look what we almost omitted:

If the biblical doctrine of creation is true, then we can practice a better science based on the truth. Creation research is therefore mandatory on the following grounds:

We won’t hold anything back. Here are all of AIG’s reasons why creation science is mandatory, and we won’t comment on any of them:

• The formulated theories are based on biblical statements; they are believed to be true, “a priori.”

• We will be able to practice a far better and more correct science in all those areas where biblical statements provide us with unassailable basic information (e.g., sin, Noah’s flood, human nature).

• Results obtained in creation research will be in accordance with the central teachings of the Bible.

• If we can abundantly demonstrate with scientific results that the Bible establishes itself exactly there where it is at present questioned and disbelieved most, then it becomes clear that its statements on salvation are equally certain.

• Behind and in all works we see the power and wisdom of God.

• Research brings joy [scripture reference omitted].

Now, dear reader, we have to back away from AIG for a few hours — at least. Our capacity for dealing with this stuff is limited.

Copyright © 2013. 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

16 responses to “AIG: The Superiority of Creation Science

  1. Dr. Werner Gitt? Dr. Gitt???

    Are you sure this isn’t a script for a Monty Python skit?

  2. Yes. Real name. At my blog, when I debunked his phony “information theory” bafflegab, I hyperlinked that Gitt’s name to the Monty Python skit.

    He is the YEC’s go-to expert for lying about information theory– the YEC answer to ID’s William Dembski.

  3. Christine Janis

    What kind of actual research are they proposing? Seeing as they already know all of the answers, it seems a little redundant.

  4. “Results obtained in creation research will be in accordance with the central teachings of the Bible…”

    … because AiG and the rest of their ilk quietly bury anything that doesn’t agree. Their “statement of faith” pretty much unravels any pretense of doing science; they start with a conclusion (the Bible is correct and reality isn’t) and then go and find evidence that supports this conclusion, loudly denouncing or burying anything that doesn’t qualify.

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    AIG says:

    “If we can abundantly demonstrate with scientific results that the Bible establishes itself exactly there where it is at present questioned and disbelieved most, then it becomes clear that its statements on salvation [emphasis added] are equally certain.”

    But fundigelicals really care little about “salvation”, at least other than their own. By definition fundigelicals have already taken the “born again” pledge, and so their own salvation is assured.

    Science and religion historian Ron Numbers notes that what the creationists want above all else is for the judgement described in the last book of the Xian bible, Revelations, to happen during their own lifetime so they can see it happen themselves, in their own lifetime. (Recall how fond they are of the phrase “Were you there?”)

    And so for fundigelicals to believe that Revelations is a literally true biblical prophecy, they have to begin with an insistence that the first book of the Hebrew bible, Genesis, is itself literally true instead of just a much edited remnant of an ancient metaphorical origin myth.

    Notice that fundagelicals seldom mention anything biblical between those two book ends, other than to furnish occasional proof texts that support their own belief that all the rest of humanity is much less worthy than they deem themselves to be.

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    I read this line: “All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms.” and thought immediately of the crocoduck. Doesn’t he know about the failure of the crocoduck argument?

  7. Like our humble Curmudgeon, but on a lesser scale, I have read a lot of the garbage shoveled out by AiG for the past couple of years.

    My observation, for what it’s worth, is that The Hamster and his merry band of Nitwit “scientists” are sinking into a pit of madness. I’ve noticed that The Hamster has been coming unhinged at an alarming pace of late. Am I alone in this observation?

  8. waldteufel says: “I’ve noticed that The Hamster has been coming unhinged at an alarming pace of late.”

    His ambitions seem to exceed those of a creation museum operator — which is all he is — but I don’t see any change in the guy.

  9. Actually, I’ve noticed that to.

  10. If you want to read something really funny (^ sad too, because folks apparently believe it) check out “Age of the Earth (Evolution is a Fake Science)” on The Thinking Atheist or You Tube.

  11. waldteufel says: “I’ve noticed that The Hamster has been coming unhinged at an alarming pace of late.”

    That just may be so.

  12. “We will be able to practice a far better and more correct science in all those areas where biblical statements provide us with unassailable basic information (e.g., sin, Noah’s flood, human nature).”

    I had planned to do my graduate work in Sinology, but then those Chinese took over the entire department.

  13. slimemold says: “I had planned to do my graduate work in Sinology, but then those Chinese took over the entire department.”

    That was very good.

  14. We will be able to practice a far better and more correct science

    So go do it then. Nothing prevents you from showing the rest of us up. Certainly not resources: Ahmanson gives $ millions to the DI every year.

    You want to show you’re right? Use creation science to build a better mousetrap. Create a room-temperature superconductor. Discover a cure for cancer. I guarantee you, if some hypothesis or method of yours leads to some extroadinary discovery, the scientific world will pay attention to it.

  15. eric says: “So go do it then.”

    Why bother? All you Darwin-ism-ologists would just ignore it and keep it from your peer reviewed journals. There must be academic freedom bills, strictly enforced, with harsh penalties. Then you’ll see some action.

  16. Why creationism isn’t science:

    The formulated theories are based on biblical statements; they are believed to be true, “a priori.”

    Why Intelligent Design creationism isn’t science: (from the Wedge Strategy)

    Governing Goal: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

    The belief that “nature and human beings are created by God” is a starting point for ID, accepted “a priori” in the same sense that the AiG accepts biblical statements.

    The only difference between the two is that traditional creationism, as advocated by the AiG and ICR, does not attempt to conceal it’s religious foundation.