This is what you’ve been waiting for. It’s the reaction of the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (ol’ Hambo’s online ministry) to the second episode of Cosmos: A SPACETIME ODYSSEY aired two days ago, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Their article is by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell. Her bio page at AIG says she’s a physician, board certified in obstetrics and gynecology. She’s a creationist gynecologist, and she explains why Tyson is all wrong. Here it is: Cosmos Review: “Some of the Things Molecules Do”. We’ll give you some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey continues in its second episode to package a bit of observational science with a mass of unverifiable evolutionary claims. This ploy — using that-which-is-observable to make a case for that-which-has-never-been-observed — fools many who fail to see its logical flaws. Far from promoting an understanding of the scientific method, this episode of Cosmos is best described as an infomercial for biological evolution.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Figuring past things out from evidence we observe today is a “ploy.” Yes, and if a woman is pregnant, what would Dr. Mitchell conclude about the cause of her condition — that there’s no explanation for it? Well, yes, it appears that’s exactly what she would say. Then she tells us:
Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson opens with a story to illustrate how dogs may have been domesticated from a wolf ancestor and then undergone artificial selection to produce all the species of dogs we see today. Biblical creationists have long said on the basis of God’s Word that all varieties of dogs likely originated from a single kind of dog.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Dogs “may have been domesticated” from wolves. Not according to AIG! They say dogs were specially created. Let’s read on:
After laying a brief foundation of observational science, the Cosmos infomercial promoting belief in billions of years of biological evolution began in earnest. Tyson said:
[AIG quotes Tyson:] If artificial selection can work such profound changes in only ten or fifteen thousand years, what can natural selection do operating over billions of years? The answer is all the beauty and diversity of life.
Tyson can’t fool AIG! We’re told:
Ken Ham recently described this tactic during the Nye-Ham Debate as a classic example of bait-and-switch with the word evolution. Species do change. In fact, nothing in the Bible even suggests otherwise. But evolutionists extrapolate from observable speciation to upward evolution because to do so suits their purposes.
Wow — she quoted ol’ Hambo as an authority. We’re not exactly clear on that he said, but it must be devastating to Tyson. We continue:
Tyson credits Darwin with de-bunking the belief in the fixity of species: “The prevailing belief was that the complexity, variety of life must be the work of an intelligent designer who created each of these millions of different species separately.”
You know that’s intolerable to AIG. Here’s how Dr. Mitchell handles it:
Variation of organisms within their created kinds — which occurs on the basis of reshuffling, isolation, selection, and other mechanisms related to the genetic information contained in that kind of organism — does not, however, support the evolutionary emergence of completely different kinds of organisms. Nor can it, because mutations — not even lots and lots of them — do not create the new genetic information that would be required to produce a more complex kind of organism but only variations of the existing kinds.
Ooooooh — mutations don’t create “new genetic information.” Except for one little thing — we know how it happens. See How One Gene Becomes Two Different Genes. Moving along, she gets to Tyson’s discussion of the DNA we share with all other organisms:
Evolutionists claim living things could only use the same [genetic] alphabet if they all evolved from a common ancestor which itself evolved from non-living matter. At the end of the program Tyson admits that the origin of DNA and of life itself remains an unsolved mystery but declares that not being able to explain how living cells sprang from non-living elements through natural processes is not a problem. He does not mention that such abiogenesis violates the most fundamental law of biological science.
We’re not told what that “most fundamental law” is — it’s probably Thou shalt not be an evolutionist. Another excerpt:
So how do biblical creation scientists account for the consistency of the genetic alphabet? How can we explain the fact that some of the same genetic instructions for certain essential proteins and the processes they direct are seen in all living things? Tyson says, for instance, that the instructions for these essentials evolved before life branched off to different forms. But when we realize that God created all kinds of living things to function in the same world, to subsist on the same raw materials from the environment, and to interact with each other, it makes sense that He would create a system to make the biochemistry of all living things on earth consistent and compatible…. God designed all the living things in His Creation to function within His Creation.
Ah, that’s the true explanation — it only appears to be the result of evolution. In reality, that’s the way God-did-it.
She goes on and on, but it’s nothing new. You can read it all, if you like. Oh, wait — we can’t omit this:
“A central premise of traditional belief is that we were created separately from all the other animals,” Tyson says. “It’s easy to see why this idea has taken hold. It makes us feel special.” Having thus rejected the biblical truth that humans — Adam and Eve and all who have descended from them — are made in the image of God [scripture reference], Tyson shares his conviction: “Accepting our kinship with all life on earth is not only solid science, it’s, in my view, also a soaring spiritual experience.”
Here’s Dr. Mitchell’s response:
While Tyson says “Come with me” as he finds spiritual exhilaration by arrogantly fancying himself intelligent enough to grasp his own insignificance [scripture reference], God our Creator offers a different path to significance, peace, and joy. Every one of us is a descendant of Adam and Eve.
The article ends with a solid paragraph of bible references. Very inspirational. So now you know how a creationist gynecologist handles the arrogance of Neil Tyson.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.