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.