AIG Reacts to the UK Creationism Ban

We recently posted about some good news from the British government: UK Bans Creationism in Tax-Supported Schools. We said: “That’s certain to generate a firestorm of outrage from the creationists.”

And now we have exactly the reaction we expected. This is from Answers in Genesis (ol’ Hambo’s online ministry). Their title is UK State-Funded Schools Ban All Teaching of Creation Science.

We are delighted to see that it’s a long, sputtering, furious rant. You already know the news, so we’ll skip their re-telling of that. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

While we at Answers in Genesis have never suggested creation science be required teaching in government schools of any country, we believe teachers and students should have the academic freedom to openly discuss the scientific difficulties with evolutionary claims. The wording of the new regulations will not only stifle academic freedom but effectively define the religion that must be taught.

Did you follow that? They don’t claim that teaching creationism should be required — of course not! — but they insist that it should be presented and discussed — purely as a matter of “academic freedom.” Then they say:

In effect, the UK is telling these schools [those that accept government funds] that they can teach any religious doctrine they wish so long as they teach the religious philosophy of evolutionism in the science classroom and exclude student exposure to the scientific flaws in the evolutionary model. And if perchance any form of “creationism” is actually part of a sponsoring church’s doctrine, the school can only discuss this doctrine if they tell children that its doctrinal position is scientifically untenable.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We love the smell of creationist outrage in the morning — or any time, for that matter. Let’s read on:

[N]ot only is it now illegal for science teachers in state-funded schools to demonstrate that scientific evidence, stripped of evolutionary interpretations, is actually consistent with creation science, but they may not even hint that evolutionary claims are insufficient and inadequate.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! All of the creationist mumbo-jumbo is banned! AIG thinks it’s an outrage! We continue:

In effect then, any school official who signs this agreement in order to receive public educational funds must not only agree to obey the restrictions but affix his or her signature to a document declaring agreement that the restriction is entirely appropriate. They are declaring that they agree with those who reject God’s role as Creator and God’s Word’s account of Creation.

They don’t have to agree with AIG’s distorted claim, but they must accept that they’re required to teach science, not creationism. AIG makes it seem as extreme as their own Statement of Faith. Whoever works for ol’ Hambo and accepts his money must literally agree with Hambo’s theology. Here’s more — it’s a big paragraph, but it’s pure gold:

The terminology in the UK schools document is carefully crafted so as to designate creation science solely as a religion, a belief system, an “ism” — creationism — while at the same ignoring the religious nature of “the scientific theory of evolution.” Our origins were not observed by any scientist. Therefore any conclusions we draw about our origins depend on which worldview we embrace: one in which the eyewitness account provided by the Creator is acknowledged as authoritative or one in which God’s Word is rejected and replaced by man’s fallible opinions. Belief in molecules-to-man evolution is thus rightly considered an “ism” — evolutionism — dependent as it is on a person’s belief system and worldview. In effect then, by enforcing the teaching of evolutionism as undeniable and banning any positive mention of creationism regardless of the doctrinal position of the school’s sponsors, the UK regulations require church schools needed their portion of public funds to subscribe to the government-designated religious position.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! This is fantastic! Moving along:

No scientist was present at the time of origins to document what happened. Knowledge of our origins requires resorting to a reliable historical record. The Word of the Creator God is such a historical account and as such allows us to correctly evaluate claims about out origins. Those who reject God’s Word rely instead on their own presuppositions but cannot actually use the scientific method to make any valid conclusions about origins.

They’re hauling it all out and dumping it into one big essay. Another excerpt:

Creation scientists do, however, utilize the scientific method! Creation science — the belief that science, in order to be accurate, must be consistent with the Bible — is used to make accurate scientific predictions. … Evolutionism is actually unsupported by the scientific method with respect to origins science, and creation scientists are quite able to utilize their biblical belief as the basis for scientific discoveries in the present utilizing the scientific method.

Yes! And your Curmudgeon is the King of Siam. On with the article:

The UK’s educational policy does not promote the development of critical thinking in students because it “protects” them from seeing the difference between observational scientific data and the worldview-based evolutionary historical spin put on it by evolutionary adherents. Schools that need their portion of the public educational funds to keep their doors open must relinquish their freedom to the detriment of their students.

It is indeed cruel, to teach students not to drool. And now we come to the end:

None of this is a surprise, as governmental gifts always tether the recipients to government control. But it is instructive to examine the codification of the new “established church of evolutionism” in the country across the water, from which many of the original American colonists once fled in their efforts to practice their minority religions and train up their children freely, without requirements imposed by the government-established church.

That was absolutely splendid — much better than we expected. What would we do without Answers in Genesis?

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article