AIG Reacts to “Cosmos” Episode 2

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.

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

24 responses to “AIG Reacts to “Cosmos” Episode 2

  1. the most fundamental law of biological science

    That would be the “law” that you can’t get living from nonliving, the usual creationist muddying of the water over the two senses of abiogenesis.

    I gather that many biologists reckon it’s not going to be so very long now before someone finally succeeds in creating life in the lab. I assume that when it happens AiG will reassure us that the biologists must have read their results wrong.

  2. Patient enters Dr. Mitchell’s surgery: “Hi Dr. Mitchell, I’m growing a large stomach.
    Dr. Mitchell lays her bible aside and looks up at the patient: “Well, dear it looks like you are pregnant.”
    Patient: “How did that happen?”
    Dr.: “you had sex with a man, hopefully your bible believing christian husband.”
    Patient: “How do you know, doctor? Were you there?”

  3. I’m confused. Is a dog more complex than a wolf?

  4. Also, I’m pretty sure there’s video of Ken Ham saying that dogs and wolves are of the same kind.

    More confuseder.

  5. God designed all the living things in His Creation to function within His Creation.

    So, how come 99% of them are extinct?

  6. Ed, animals are sinners, duh.

  7. Ken Ham has millions invested in his Creation Museum, so he will continue to pump out scriptural “evidence” to support his false interpretation of reality.
    What’s amazing is that he can get people whom you would think would be well-educated to write this [edited out].

  8. What’s amazing is that he can get people whom you would think would be well-educated to write this [edited out].

    I don’t think you need to do that. Ken Ham’s not a billionaire.

  9. realthog accuses: “I don’t think you need to do that. Ken Ham’s not a billionaire.”

    I’m innocent! retiredsciguy is wisely editing himself.

  10. Taken as a group, Hambo’s coterie of apologists masquerading as scientists provide us evidence that possession of an advanced degree by itself is no guarantee of an ability to recognize reality and think logically.

  11. @realthog: I put that “edited out” thing in there; not to protect SC from a lawsuit, but to keep things sanitary. Curmy runs a classy blog, so I didn’t want to write “ca-ca” or “poo” or $#it.

    “[edited out]” serves the purpose well. Besides, if we call Ham a [edited out] [edited out] [edited out], it just lends credence to his rants that we’re just a bunch of uncouth atheist evolutionists. I just hate being called uncouth.

  12. I type slowly, and wrote my response above before seeing Curmy’s answer.
    He’s right — I did it.

  13. @retiredsciguy, @SC

    I’m innocent! retiredsciguy is wisely editing himself.

    I put that “edited out” thing in there; not to protect SC from a lawsuit, but to keep things sanitary.

    Aaargh! It was my little joke, dammit.

    Okay, very little.

  14. Stephen Kennedy

    This AIG response was really weak, repetitive and totally predictable. The gynecologist has no idea what she is talking about so just preaches week after week without offering any new insights. Georgia Purdom always has to put her cents in, which isn’t even worth two cents, on any topic involving the Life Sciences and as usual offers a big helping of witnessing but nothing more. If yesterday’s response by AIG to the discovery of gravitational waves produced by cosmic inflation is any indication, the gynecologist is going to really be on her own when future episodes of Cosmos start talking about things like stellar evolution and the formation of galaxies.

    I do not know what has become of Jason Lisle, but the creationists at ICR seem to be silent so far on both the Cosmos television series and the discovery of gravity waves which confirm the Big Bang Theory.

  15. Stephen, I wouldn’t be surprised if the duller lights at ICR aren’t even aware of the discovery of gravitational waves observed in the cosmic background radiation. I think their “science” staff is even more clueless than AiG. I know it’s hard to imagine.

  16. Charles Deetz ;)

    The many wiggle words and phrases she uses demonstrate that she is not standing on the truth of the bible, but in her assumptions of what god did.

    it makes sense that He would create a system to make the biochemistry of all living things on earth consistent and compatible

    It doesn’t ‘make sense’, it is necessary. Her logic is along the lines of ‘It makes sense God created water otherwise we would be thirsty’. Thought experiments are bad enough, but thought experiments about what the bible indicates are lame lame lame.

  17. realthog laments, “Aaargh! It was my little joke, dammit.”

    Hey, that is pretty funny. That’s the problem with written jokes — so much humor depends on voice inflection. Thus, the “winky face” 😉 . (Unfortunately, when we type a semi-colon, a hyphen, and a close parenthesis,
    WordPress changes it to a little face.)

  18. Is there any way (please!) to take the word “kind” away from them?

  19. Curmy wonders—

    “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?”

    Depends, I s’pose. There’s always Immaculate Conception, a.k.a. “[divinely edited in]”. Or a Second Coming…

  20. Well done, Con-Tester.

  21. Waldteufel, I don’t think the advanced degree has anything to do with it. These people are grasping tightly at what is typically ingrained beliefs from their impressionable childhood.
    A case in point was a recent “Nightline” which had a family split up by Scientology. It was revealed that even though the mother had issues with the church, she was still a true believer. Now if can get people to believe hack science fiction from the 1950s is true and L. Ron Hubbard is a prophet you can get tenacious beliefs about anything, degree or not.

  22. @Troy: Agree 100%. It’s as though we humans are like little ducklings — we become “imprinted” with the “knowledge” taught in early childhood, and it stays with us tenaciously through life, just as ducklings become imprinted on their mother upon hatching.

  23. @Mary L: that’s not a kind question you ask.

  24. mnbo – I stand unrepentant.