They’re answering the mail again at 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.
Today’s letter is being answered by Nathan Ham, the oldest son of ol’ Hambo. You can find it here: Feedback: “You People Are Morons”. Nice title. This is the question they received:
You people are morons to think the earth is only 6000 to 10000 years old. Just because you’re too stupid to understand, or too lazy to find out the truth about, scientific FACT, doesn’t make it untrue. Give me one iota of SCIENTIFIC truth concerning the existence of a god and maybe I’ll revise my views, otherwise shut your mouths about knowing the truth — a concept that is obviously over your puny minds, as is abstract thought.
Not bad, huh? Here are a few excerpts from young Hambo’s long answer, omitting his links and scripture references, and with bold font added by us:
I’m going to get right to the point. At Answers in Genesis, we have dealt with these same questions literally hundreds of times in many books, videos, magazine and website articles, emails, and conferences. You say we are unscientific, but we have documented over 190 scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation and written extensively on the differences between operational science and historical science.
Wow — over 190 scientists! And as for that clunker about two different kinds of science, we’ve dealt with that many times already — see Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Let’s read on:
You say we are “”too stupid to understand, or too lazy to find out the truth about, scientific FACT,”” but for five years we have published the Answers Research Journal, a professional, peer-reviewed journal with quality scholarship and scientific research. You think us “”morons”” to believe the Bible’s historical record of the earth’s age, but have you carefully and rationally considered all the scientific arguments presented on our site?
Peer-reviewed? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, by their creationist peers. We continue:
You call for “”one iota of SCIENTIFIC truth concerning the existence of a god”,” but if I point out the miracle of human conception and birth, would you admit that we are “”fearfully and wonderfully made””? Probably not. Or look at your hand (or any other part of your body), which is a witness to the Creator’s brilliance, power, and love. The most sophisticated artificial hand made by the smartest scientists is not even worth comparing to the hands God made. But you probably won’t accept that scientific fact either, because you are rejecting the truth in unrighteousness, just as the apostle Paul said [scripture reference].
You want proof? Your own carcass is proof! Here’s more:
You also criticize us as having “”puny minds,”” but have you ever scientifically studied the Bible’s fulfilled prophecies or considered the impossibility of 40 or so different authors from three continents in three languages writing 66 individual books (that we now call the Bible) over a period of 1,600 years in perfect agreement and unison? The hate-filled, unscientific attitude of your email suggests that you have not carefully weighed any evidence.
Lordy, lordy. The evidence just keeps piling up. Moving along:
Your problem is not intellectual or scientific, but rather moral and spiritual. You have a heart disease called sin. …
Skipping a big sermon, we come to another excerpt:
Some people will consider my statements to be unfair characterizations, but I am informed by the Bible, which is more authoritative on human nature than any pronouncements by scientists (although we are certainly not against science).
Certainly not! On with the answer:
From a heart of compassion that cares about your eternal destiny, I beg of you: don’t follow the historical precedent and tradition that blindly rejects Christ, but please carefully consider all of the materials already provided by Answers in Genesis. [More sermonizing omitted.]
Okay, that’s enough. So there you are, dear reader. AIG has answered the question. Well done, AIG!
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
Because AIG is bragging about “Answers Research Journal, a professional, peer-reviewed journal with quality scholarship and scientific research”, I hope Curm will forgive me for once again linking to my blog post on the slogan that there is “A Growing Number” and “More and More” creationists.
I updated this post to included QUANTITATIVE estimates of how much research creationists and ID proponents do, as compared with scientists publishing on evolution.
Short answer, quoting myself:
“So in the year 2011, creationists published 60 articles [this count includes “Answers Research Journal”], and most of them were not even scientific research. In 2012, ID proponents published four articles and only half were research articles. Let’s be generous and say 64 articles for creationism and ID combined.
By comparison, when Les Lane ran the numbers on how many published science articles have “evolution” as a keyword, there were 43,903 in 2011, and the next year, that increased by 5,214, an average rate of increase of 8% per year.
Thus, the year-over-year INCREASE in articles published on evolution is 7,147% larger than the TOTAL number of articles published on creationism and Intelligent Design combined– and most of the creationist articles, and half the ID articles, are not real research, but apologetics, theology, and social commentary.” [Source]
Curm, can you please fix my stupid italics.
I fixed the italics by removing them, except for the name of the journal. It seems to look okay.
It always comes down to a deferral statement.
“YEC is correct because you are all sinners and you will burn in hell if you don’t agree with YEC dogma”.
The so called debate isn’t a debate at all, it’s an opportunity to evangelize. The folks that don’t grasp the moment and convert are inherently wrong and will burn in hell at a later date, but it’s fine to assume they are wrong right now.
Mysticism has always been about neat packages that attempt to reduce reality into easy to digest kibble. And maybe a reward after your dead, which translates to “the cheque is in the mail”.
“You say we are unscientific, but we have documented over 190 scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation”
This reminds me of the Simpson quote when Homer is busted by the IRS for filing a fraudulent tax return:
“Mr. Simpson, this government machine can process up to NINE tax returns per day. Did you really think you could fool us?”
“By comparison, when Les Lane ran the numbers on how many published science articles have “evolution” as a keyword, there were 43,903 in 2011,”
That’s going to mainly pick up the ones in genetics and evodevo —- probably won’t pick up many of the thousands more in paleontology
The AIG definition of peer review: You hold one hand over your left eye, and then just barely open your right eye or “peer” out. Then you stamp it bible certified peer reviewed.
Oh shame on the doubters! The post-predictive prophecies of the Bible are unquestionably 100%!
DING, DING, DING! That’s the whole problem wrapped up in one compound sentence.
The Hams will never change their tune. They have too much invested in their scam Museum and in their “Ark Park” fraud to EVER admit that science might be even a little bit right.
They will continue taking money from those who can least afford it, all the while letting them think they are buying their salvation.
The fleeced flock needs a messiah who will offer salvation from the Hams. If there is a hell, the Hams are guaranteeing their reservations.
It’s sad, really, but Nathan is a big a wanker as his father, and Eric Hovind is, too. The rotten apple doesn’t fall far from the decayed tree. But, the list is long: Falwell’s kid, Graham’s kid and name a preacher he’s got a screwed up kid.
Where’s Health and Human Services when you need them to stop this child abuse!
Francis Schaeffer’s kid turned out OK, I.e. agnostic, and a keen critic of fundamentalists.
I once thought as does retiredsciguy…
‘They will continue taking money from those who can least afford it, all the while letting them think they are buying their salvation.’
But no I can’t feel sorry for Sheeple that let this happen to themselves. They are all too ignorant or scared to really ever learn anything nor do they want to, not because it is hard work to learn, but they do not want to face the unknown of reality…..it terrifies them. Let’s say one of those poor Sheeple want to learn evilution? $1 at most used book stores will get you started with some text book, the local library usually has many for FREE and has computers to use as study helpers. But no they do nothing because what they learn tells them that the con-artists they listen too do NOT know anything beyond this reality and neither does anyone else.
They will learn their wasted prayers grant them nothing. The illusion MUST be maintained! the delusion must be held close.
The claim that “Answers in Research Journal” is a “professional, peer-reviewed journal with quality scholarship and scientific research” is risible. The “instructions to authors manual” states, in part, that “The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.“ The “above criteria” include statements such as the paper must be “formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework”, and the statement of faith states that no evidence from any field is valid if it conflicts with scripture. Talk about stacking the deck!
I agree with the Longster. Let them fleece those willing to be fleeced. Far be it for me to be a moral cop when Christians are cheating Christians. Let ’em go.
The irony is that my humanistic moral compass would guide me away from such a business model, unlike televangelist Pat Robertson who extolled his flock to send him whatever they had, even $20, and even if they were broke or in bankruptcy. Nice guy, Pat.
@Stickler … It’s kinda like asking the Harlem Globetrotters why they’ve never won an NBA championship. The Globetrotters play by their own rules, and stack the deck in who they compete with. They think they are awesome and could beat any NBA team. So it is with AIG.
The response is so obviously from a completely different perspective that to us rational human beings it is downright silly and tone-deaf … it doesn’t even come close to addressing the writer’s question. My hand is the best miracle you can come up with as evidence??? Fur realz?
Heavy drug use. Hey, man, have you ever looked at your hand, man? I mean really, really looked at it?
Hey, you got any chips or something?
Amusingly/ironically/providentially today for the first time I ran into the Answers Research Journal, via this link:
The article and the comments are a beatdown of AIG’s ignorant pomposity the likes of which I have seen only on other of my favorite web sites–here, Why Evolution is True, and Pharyngula.
docbill: “Hey, man, have you ever looked at your hand, man? I mean really, really looked at it?”
You’re driving me nuts, doc. Where’s that line from?
“…in perfect agreement and unison…”
Obviously hambo junior has never read the bible.
Rather than arguing about how many articles (or, for that matter, about the number of people), my own take on this is where in the great amount of literature on creationism/intelligent design there is an alternative explanation. In all of that literature (done by all of those scientists), how do they explain the nested hierarchy of the tree of life without common descent with modification? What is there about the creator/designers that led to the fact that the human eye, for example, is a standard vertebrate eye (rather than an eye like an octopus, or like an insect, or something completely different)? What does it tell us about the purposes of the creator/designers that our bodies are most like those of chimps and other apes (are we supposed to act like apes)? What constraints on creation/design are there that leads to things being such-and-such, rather than something else (are there laws of creation/design)?
Let’s suppose, for the moment, that evolution is false: What is the alternative explanation? What purpose does it serve to make life on earth appear to have had a history of change for many millions of years?
Regarding the “ever look at your hand, man” I thought it came from a Cheech and Chong routine, possibly one I heard live in college. It was a common thing to say at the time, meant to be an absurd observation.
Those of us who were common alcoholics referred to the marijuana smokers as “pot heads” with the nicer (?) term “stoner” coming along decades later, I think. Anyway, pot head was synonymous with dropout and we common alcoholics had careers to build and governments to run so we derided the pot heads and scoffed at their hazy philosophy.
However, Google provided at least one cultural reference and a good one at that from my favorite TV show from the 80’s:
“Ever really get into your hand, man? I mean, all those lines, it’s like a tiny expressway! Your thumb is an off ramp!”
— Dr. Johnny Fever on WKRP in Cincinnati
When I was a child, I had a fever. My hands felt like two balloons.
Now I’ve got that feeling once again.
Help me, Dr. Hambo, you’re my only hope.
Thanks, doc. I had heard the line (probably several times), and was wracking my brain trying to remember the context. I was thinking George Carlin, but wasn’t sure.
I have no doubt that George Carlin used that reference or something similar to it. How my parents used to laugh at the Hippy Dippy Mailman. We were so young!
Hippy Dippy Weatherman, doc. “The radar also shows a flight of ICBMs headed our way, so don’t sweat the thunderstorms, man…”
That’s the problem with you young whippersnappers! You just don’t pay attention! And you went to Purdue, too! Tsk, tsk!
Seriously, there have been but a few true geniuses in the entire history of humanity — Archimedes, Newton, Kepler, Einstein, Darwin, Franklin, Carlin…
Otto: They call fingers but I’ve never seen them fing. Oh, there they go.