Answers in Genesis — Fan Mail #6

They’re answering the mail again at Answers in Genesis (AIG). That’s 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 Jeremy Ham, who is presumably related ol’ Hambo. We’ve seen Jeremy described as “AiG’s content manager” — whatever that means. You can find his post here: Feedback: “The Biggest Joke on the Internet”. Nice title. This is the mail they received, and we’ll put it in red so you can’t miss it:

I just thought I’d make you aware of how much this site contributes to the ignorance of humanity. Is it any wonder that educated people the world over consider this the biggest joke on the internet?

Our only objection to that letter is that such things are a waste of time. The gang at AIG have heard it all, and their brains are impenetrable. Oh, one other objection — the truly biggest joke on the internet isn’t AIG, it’s The Time Cube. Anyway, here are a few excerpts from young Hambo’s answer. We’re omitting his numerous scripture quotes and links, and we’re adding a bit of bold font for emphasis:

You have not stated whether you are a secularist, theistic evolutionist, or something else. However, from your feedback it seems that you reject Christianity as a whole. Whatever the case, let us examine your statements from various aspects.

What difference does it make if the letter-writer were a Buddhist nudist onanist? The letter addresses the material promoted by AIG. Let’s read on:

It is rather ironic that many secularists and the like feel the need to passionately and openly denigrate Christianity. Why spend so much time bashing Christians and God’s Word? The very fact that many secularists give us so much attention, even negatively, makes one wonder if there is something more to it — as if underneath it all, they know there really is a God who created the universe: [huge scripture quote].

It’s obvious to young Hambo that deep down the letter-writer knows AIG is correct. Yes, that’s right, just as when a pretty girl tells us: “Get lost, creep!” we know that what she’s really saying is that she desperately wants us. AIG’s response continues:

Secularists know there is a God, but they have “exchanged the truth of God for the lie” [scripture reference]. Despite what others say, there will never be a piece of evidence contrary to the God of the Bible because He is the truth, and mankind knows it. Sadly, there are many who still reject Him — they have a heart that rejects God in order to cling to their own sin.

Isn’t this great? AIG claims that not only does the letter-writer know he’s wrong, but he rejects The Truth so he can cling to his sin. By the way, we’re keeping track, and so far we don’t see much from AIG that deals with the actual contents of the letter. Maybe that will change. Here’s more from young Hambo:

No matter what evidence we use to confirm Scripture, they will use their anti-God starting point to explain it away. When that fails, they will resort to emotive language and other empty statements.

Your homework assignment, dear reader, is to turn that around by changing “confirm Scripture” to “confirm science,” and also changing “anti-God starting point” to “anti-reality starting point.” Let us know how that works for you. Moving along:

There are professing believers who compromise the authority of God’s Word simply to accommodate the secular ideas of millions of years and evolution, which ultimately were developed to explain away God. Why would Christians give in to the lies of man by compromising with evolution or millions of years rather than believing the truth of Scripture?

Why? Well, maybe it’s because observable, verifiable evidence is important to some of us. Here’s another excerpt:

This compromise leaves the door open to doubting God’s Word as a whole, especially since it throws out God’s eternal truth for the changing opinions of man. If you question God on one thing, why not on another and another until you simply throw out His Word altogether? As we have stated many times before, a plain reading of Genesis 1–11 — without any preconceived or worldly bias, knowing the Bible to be God’s inerrant Word — clearly indicates that evolution and millions of years are simply not true.

We’ve mentioned before that AIG’s “all or nothing” approach to scripture is their problem, not ours. They’re the ones who keep insisting that if it isn’t all literally true, then none of it has any value. Who is to blame if people listen to Hambo, take him seriously, think about it, and then walk away from the whole thing? Let’s get on with the answer to AIG’s fan mail:

People may call us ignorant, foolish, or uneducated for the stand that we take on the truth of God’s Word, but why is standing on the authority of God’s Word a joke? After all, the truth of God’s Word is apparent as we have already stated. Rather than laughing at the truth, I strongly urge you to make sure your heart is right with God.

If the truth of Genesis were really apparent, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we? Here’s more:

To easily disprove your statement that educated people consider us a joke, we refer you to many scientists around the world who believe the biblical account of creation — as well as the ones we have on staff. We have mentioned these accomplished scientists numerous times and sadly we have been ignored many times.

And we could refer AIG to the more than 99% of scientists who think AIG truly is a joke, but AIG doesn’t care. The thing ends with some advice to the letter-writer — he should pray to be forgiven for his sins, and he should read a bunch of AIG’s articles. That’s very thoughtful — but the letter-writer wasn’t seeking either their advice or a sermon. You probably noticed that he didn’t get much of a meaningful response to his letter.

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

18 responses to “Answers in Genesis — Fan Mail #6

  1. I had to stop at this comment: “What difference does it make if the letter-writer were a Buddhist nudist onanist?”

    If all the summations of the author stem from that as a viable premise then it will make no sense. Life philosophies are by and large subjective and will usually offer a prejudgment of what a person response may or may not be about any given subject. Context is important. If the author wishes to believe that context is unimportant and, hence, rests on the idea that it is their own religious or non-religious dogma that is the only right one, I have to assume that the author is beyond dialogue or debate and only wishes to proselytize their own self proclaimed and self-presumed righteousness. IMHO

  2. Richard Olson

    Ham Jr. is a SnotBrain.

  3. You would have thought that with all the resources it has available, AiG could have come up with a better responses than this. Instead we get the usual spewing of crap.

    1. An attack on AiG is an attack on Christianity. Bollocks. An attack on AiG is an attack on AiG. AiG is not representative of Christianity. In fact AiG often attacks other Christians with the same condescension and venom as non-Christians do.

    2. Although we don’t believe in gods, we do really. Look, you f-ing morons, we are atheists. That means we don’t believe in gods, including your God.

    3. Bible verses. If you don’t want us to read your stuff, just keep on with the Bible verses. They are an automatic off-switch. They’re meaningless to us, so why bother?

    4. Creation science is an oxymoron, and the wider scientific community recognises this. So, you have a handful of people who have trained as scientists, and some even still do real science. But when they do creation science I.e. not real science, they are rejecting all they have been taught. They are making themselves a laughing stock. They are a joke, and they’re making it worse by siding with AiG.

  4. Notice the AiG response: “The very fact that many secularists give us so much attention, even negatively, makes one wonder if there is something more to [God’s word] — as if underneath it all, they know there really is a God who created the universe.”

    Already Luther made the brilliant observation that there can’t be any REAL atheists, because when they say that there is no god, they themselves make reference to God, and so they grant that there is a God after all. End of discussion!

    I wonder whether Ham the Second would agree that the cited principle still applies after a little rephrasing: “The very fact that many creationists give evolutionary science so much attention, even negatively, makes one wonder if there is something more to it — as if underneath it all, they know there really has been evolution going on, resulting in the biosphere as we know it.”

  5. Richard – snot has some substance 🙂

  6. Jeremy Ham described as “AiG’s content manager”

    Could that possibly mean Censor in Chief, or to use the Catholic’s official terminology:

    The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (C.D.F.) (Latin: Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei), formerly known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.”

  7. Wouldn’t the absence of any preconceived or worldly bias require an the reader to have an agnostic point of view rather than the bias that comes with assuming a mystical entity either exists or not?

    Or is the word Bias a Hamsterville code word for “those who don’t agree with me, and as a result are not a source of income”?

  8. It’s impossible for the Hamites to conceive of the notion of not believing in God. They can’t do it. So, naturally, when someone says that have no use for that hypothesis, the Hams conclude that they are actually opposed to a god which they know, deep down, exists.

    But think about it – what sane human being would declare himself in opposition to an all powerful creature with the capability of torturing his soul for all eternity? No one. That’s not a winnable fight. The only possibility is that the atheist truly does not believe that god exists. Or, as the agnostic might put it, if one exists, he/she/it would not likely be the murderous / vengeful god of the hebrews.

    Outspoken atheists are not railing against a nonexistent god, but rather against the destructive actions of the people who do believe in such god(s). Such as the Hams. Although, I do not think they will ever understand that.

  9. Homework Assignment #1, by Tomato Addict

    No matter what evidence we use to confirm Scripture confirm science, they will use their anti-God anti-reality starting point to explain it away. When that fails, they will resort to emotive language and other empty statements.

    Yes, by all means, let us not resort to Emotive language like, “Sadly, there are many who still reject Him — they have a heart that rejects God in order to cling to their own sin.”. OR, “Rather than laughing at the truth, I strongly urge you to make sure your heart is right with God.” That sort of language won’t accomplish anything at all.

    As for empty statements and whatever value you may attach to the Bible, it gets a little emptier every time the Hams quote from it. I think that is kind of sad.

  10. I even checked my HTML! Apple on your desk, Curmie

    — And now for something completely different* —

    This bit about atheists resorting to “emotive language” is a recurring thing with AiGgies. Does anyone know the source for this? I have to suspect it comes from Daddy Ham himself.

    * Maybe you were expecting this?

  11. SC: “The gang at AIG have heard it all, and their brains are impenetrable.”

    True, but there’s one they probably never heard, and would probably censor it if they did. That would go like:

    “Evolution may be dead, dying, falsified, unfalsifiable and the root of all evil, but I heard that the designer might not be God, that there was billions of years of death before the Fall, and that you and I might even still be related to monkeys and trees. At least that’s what the people at the Discovery Institute say. Surely if independent evidence supported your claims of a young earth and “kinds” they’d be touting that.”

  12. Yes, Frank J, I wonder why the DI people are not mentioning a “young Earth” and fixity of “kinds”. It isn’t that they are being censored by the secularist conspiracy, that’s for sure.

  13. @TomS: You know this, but for the benefit of readers who might not, while the DI officially avoids taking a position on the “when” and “kinds” questions, DI individuals who do occasionally state a clear position, concede billions of years of common descent.

    What few people appreciate is that the DI can afford to make those occasional concessions, because their target audience is mostly not the committed young earthers who prefer overtly Biblical outfits like AiG. Even the committed literalist DI fans are mostly OECs. But most DI fans are not committed literalists, just typical nonscientists who are easily conned into distrusting scientists, blindly trusting snake oil peddlers, and oblivious to the double standard.

    If there were a shred of evidence for young earth or young life – or even old life with independently originated “kinds,” the DI would be all over it, and crowing about it incessantly. There would be no need to mention creation or design. Their audience would infer that part as they now do with the mutually contradictory “what happened when” parts. And what they would claim would be 100% legal to teach in public school science class.

  14. @Ed: Your “who in their right mind” comment is exactly what I think every time I hear any form of the “willfully disobedient to God” argument (and a very similar thought when I hear people call homosexuality a choice).

    Yet you see this in many Chick tracts, campaigns against gay rights, arguments against atheism, and even discussions of Charles Darwin. I have personally spoken to someone who stated that Darwin came up with ToE because he was mad at God over the death of his daughter. I feel that this sort of thinking may even be behind the “I was an atheist” phenomenon (you know, when a Good Christian(TM) talks about how s/he “used to be an atheist” and had on many occasions “asked Jesus to come into my life”).

    This sort of thinking is quite typical of the absolutist mind. It is impossible for such people to recognize the difference between (their) belief and universal knowledge.

  15. Ceteris Paribus

    SC asks: “What difference does it make if the letter-writer were a Buddhist nudist onanist?”

    Well, at a convention of Buddhist nudist onanaists the participants, by definition, share at least three personal attributes in common. Something that can never happen at any atheist-con.

  16. Ceteris Paribus says: “Well, at a convention of Buddhist nudist onanaists …”

    Some has to ask: Were you there?

  17. Ed notes: “It’s impossible for the Hamites to conceive of the notion of not believing in God. They can’t do it. So, naturally, when someone says that have no use for that hypothesis, the Hams conclude that they are actually opposed to a god which they know, deep down, exists.”

    Maybe there is a lesson for all of us here. When one faces people who “claim” to think in a very different way from oneself, it is difficult to take them altogether seriously. Rather one assumes that they are dishonest, or at least they must have some doubts about their “nonsensical” beliefs: Surely nobody can really believe such crazy stuff?

    This works both ways, of course. Those of us who realize that dinosaurs and humans only coexisted in the universe of Fred Flintstone have a hard time believing that Ken Ham and others of his ilk can SINCERELY believe in the “interpretation” of world history that is presented at the Creation Museum. So often we speak of Ham lying, being a conman etc. Probably this is unjust — we must get our heads around the fact that this guy really, seriously believes in this stuff. He is on a holy mission. He wants to defend God’s Word (capital G, capital W) and all that is Good and Right, Moral and Proper against the evil onslaught of evolution-based secularism (which leads to Hitler, abortion, cigarette smoking, etc. etc.)

  18. Ceteris Paribus

    TC interrogates CP: “Someone has to ask: Were you there?

    CP replies with the demurrer: “My personal intersection with the sets Buddhist AND nudist AND onanist is empty”