We’re not going to spend much time on this, because it’s so bad that it’s not even amusing. The only reason we’re bringing it to your attention is because it’s the only creationist reaction we’ve seen to Episode 3 of Your Inner Fish, hosted by Neil Shubin, which aired a few days ago.
It’s from the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (ol’ Hambo’s online ministry), and the author is Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, a creationist gynecologist. We posted about her reaction to Episode 1, and we ignored what she said about Episode 2 — but if you want to see that one at the AIG website it’s here: Review: Your Inner Reptile.
The creationist gynecologist’s critique of Episode 3 is Review: Your Inner Monkey. It’s rather long, but all she does, over and over again, is dismiss Shubin’s evidence by saying it doesn’t show her anything. She claims that his interpretation of the evidence is based solely on his presuppositions. She also claims that everything he sees is God’s work, and any similarities we share with other species are merely because the creator likes to re-use his designs.
Really, that’s all she says. And she insists it’s Shubin who suffers from presuppositions! Here are a few excerpts, with a touch of bold font added for emphasis:
Shubin’s case rests entirely on the assumption that all life evolved from a primitive common ancestor. As we examine his parade of proofs we shall see that it is this starting assumption, not the evidence in the human body as he contends, that determines his conclusions.
That’s how it starts. She doesn’t know the difference between an assumption and a conclusion. It gets worse. For example:
Swinging from the trees to a fossil bed in Wyoming, Shubin introduces us to the lemur-like Notharctus. Like a lemur’s, the hand of Notharctus featured long fingers with fingernails (as opposed to the paws and claws of many other animals) and a thumb set at an angle to the other digits. This is the deepest human-like hand shape in the fossil record.
Such a hand is great for gripping the thinner branches of a tree. But what has this hand to do with human history? Nothing. Shubin maintains this primate made a handy evolutionary innovation that humans eventually inherited, but that interpretation is rooted in evolutionary presuppositions. Nothing in the study of living things shows such transitions from one kind of creature to another.
Did you notice that? We’ll repeat it: “Nothing in the study of living things shows such transitions from one kind of creature to another.” What’s she saying? Monkeys don’t give birth to humans? We have no idea if that’s deliberate slime or just creationist silliness. Let’s read on:
The human hand—perfectly suited for power and precision but without the extremely long fingers of an arboreal animal—shares some features with the lemur. Those common designs, however, are exactly what we expect from our Common Designer, the Creator God of the Bible, who made land animals and man on the same day, the 6th day of Creation Week about 6,000 years ago.
Uh huh, they’re just common designs. Here’s another brilliant statement on the subject of our bipedal gait:
But even if Lucy and her cousins did have a more versatile anatomy than some other apes, tiptoeing through the jungle didn’t make anything ape-like turn into a person. Nothing could. God created Adam and Eve, the first humans, in His image the same day He created apes. We have His Word on it.
What about all our back problems? This is her explanation — and bear in mind that she’s a physician:
The human back is designed for the way God designed us to walk. The fact that our bodies wear out does not link us to an evolutionary past. Back problems — like every other malady — are consequences of living in a sin-cursed world.
This is great creation science! Here’s more:
Having decided that all life must be explained without a Creator, evolutionists must believe increasingly complex creatures came into being through a series of interconnected events, even though such events are not seen in living creatures. Having already decided that all living things share a common evolutionary ancestry, they view embryologic development as a pattern providing evolutionary insight and interpret common designs as evidence for their position. The evolutionary starting point determines how they interpret comparative anatomy and genetics and essentially predetermines their conclusions.
As we warned you, Mitchell keeps saying the same thing over and over again. Now we come to her inspiring conclusion:
The Bible, in the book of Genesis, records God’s eyewitness account of the six days in which He created all things. What we observe in anatomy, paleontology, and genetics is consistent with what we read in God’s Word. We understand the presence of common designs in a marvelously biodiverse world as the glorious expression of our Creator’s wisdom, power, and creativity. The human body, even with all the things that do go wrong with it in a sin-cursed world, is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). When we get the starting points right, we can see the truth about our origins and better understand the rest of what the Bible tells us about our need for a Savior.
What must it be like in her gynecological practice? We don’t know, of course, but based on the foregoing, we imagine the typical examination goes something like this: “That looks horrible! My diagnosis is that you are suffering the consequences of sin. My prescription is prayer — lots of prayer. And repentance. If that doesn’t work, then your condition is the incurable result of divine will. There is nothing more to be done.”
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.