AIG Can Solve the Ebola Problem

Not long ago we wrote Hey, Creationists: What About Ebola?, in which we said:

Creationists claim to know the reason for all things. Although they have no idea how to cure someone suffering from Ebola, and no way to develop a vaccine (they leave such things to godless scientists), creationists should at least be able to explain why Ebola exists.

Our patience has been rewarded. We now have an Ebola essay from the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG), the on-line ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. The title is Where Did Ebola Come From?, written by Andrew Fabich. AIG provides some information about him here: Contributors. He’s an assistant professor of microbiology at Liberty University.

Skipping over some introductory paragraphs describing Ebola, Fabich then gets to the good stuff. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

With the wickedness of this particular virus, people often wonder where God is amid all this death, disease, pain, and suffering. It is imperative to understand several key concepts as we approach an answer to this question.

Okay, here it comes:

First, we must understand the goodness of God. The psalmist writes [bible, bible]. We must, therefore, also be committed to the idea of God’s goodness. The idea of God’s goodness emanates from Him in the Creation Week. God uses the word good to describe the original creation six times (every day was pronounced “good” except for Day Two) and the last verse of Genesis 1 describes the original creation as “very good” after God had created man in His image. God’s goodness can sometimes be difficult to see in some created things (e.g., viruses in general, but Ebola specifically).

Fine, we’ve got the concept of goodness. Now what about Ebola? Let’s read on:

The question becomes one of whether there is any kind of good that can come from viruses.

Fabich gives a couple of examples of beneficial viruses (of which Ebola is not one), and then says:

While we can see some elements of possibly good things about viruses, it is important that we understand God is our Creator and Redeemer, not some cosmic killjoy. We read that not only did God create the world and everything in it, but that He regularly interacts with it [bible, bible]. God is not detached from His creation. The reason it is important to realize that God is the Creator is because viruses are efficient machines that quit working when one part is removed. The machine analogy strongly supports that these were intelligently designed and meet the criteria of irreducible complexity.

Oh yeah — intelligent design and irreducible complexity. Well, at least the Discoveroid jargon is a break from all the bible quotes. Is AIG adopting the Discoveroids’ version of things? No, they’re not. Get this:

Since viruses require all their parts to function and removing one part prevents them from effectively functioning, they must be designed according to the ID movement. But if these efficient viral machines (like Ebola) were designed this way, does that mean God is working to kill us all the day long? The problem with the ID movement not recognizing the God of the Bible as the Creator is that it divorces the Creator from the creation and His work of redemption.

Ah, so that’s the Discoveroids’ problem. Fabich continues:

Would a loving God create something to kill us? God forbid. If all we do is look at the efficiency of viruses, then must one conclude that they were designed to kill us according to the ID movement. The idea of having a Creator-Redeemer is important in understanding viruses because of the related idea that we live in a fallen world.

Yes! We’ve pointed out before that the Discoveroids are stuck with obvious examples of sloppy design, leaving them with no explanation for why their “theory” fails to explain such things. But the more honest bible-based creationists can always use original sin as a handy excuse. AIG has it all! Here’s more:

Knowing that we live in a fallen world, we can see that God did not design viruses to kill us. We can look in Scripture and understand that viruses (like Ebola) are simply a molecular thorn and thistle [bible, bible]. Originally, viruses most likely were part of the very good creation. Therefore, this concept of God as Creator and Redeemer correlates well with what we observe in the few good and essential viruses in light of the many viruses causing disease.

Uh huh, it correlates well. Isn’t creation science wonderful? Creationism is true, Good is good, and Ebola is our fault because we’re sinners. So what’s to be done? Fabich spends the rest of his essay praising the work of medical missionaries. He says:

Dr. Brantly and other medical missionaries have received strong criticism lately from the secular humanists for no other reason than because the missionaries are Christians. The secular humanists are envious that Christians are being portrayed well in the media. In many ways, I commend medical missionaries like Dr. Brantly who decided to take the call of God seriously and use medicine to reach people for Jesus Christ.

Ah, that’s the answer! It’s a bit like Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition. Then he explains why the Darwinists have no answer at all:

Ultimately, unlike those with a biblical worldview, the secular humanists have no clear moral basis to put themselves at risk to help the downtrodden, sick, and infirm. If we are just the product of random chance processes over time, as Darwinian evolution asserts, then why not let the sick die off so the strong will survive? However, since we are not the byproducts of random chance processes, we should conduct ourselves altogether differently.

Okay, that’s enough. The Discoveroids don’t know what’s going on and the evolutionists are happy to let Ebola victims die. Only AIG both understands Ebola and can do something about it. Where would we be without creation science?

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

23 responses to “AIG Can Solve the Ebola Problem

  1. This Fabich clown is a great example of how sending your child off to Liberty University is roughly the equivalent of sending them off to get a pre-frontal lobotomy.

  2. Since AIG knows so much about ebola, what are they doing about it?? I will (and have) put my money on MSF (Médecins Sans Frontières), and hope others do too.

  3. Doctor Stochastic

    Another creationist who has no clue what random means.

  4. abreastwood, good for you! MSF has been, for many years, my favorite non-profit aid group. While Hambo and his merry band are mumbling to their sky-fairy as their fingers comb the depths of the droolers’ pockets, MSF is out in the real world helping people and saving lives every day. What a stark contrast they are to the useless pan handlers at AiG.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    Eighth grade rhetoric or persuasive writing class essay, grade C+ … please cite more examples that the rest of the class won’t laugh at.

  6. First, we must understand the goodness of God.”

    That’s why Ham is constructing an Ark to celebrate his deity’s goodness in drowning the human population, men, women, children, and yes, even fetuses.

    But in the discussion about ebola, perhaps it can be understood that even if Ham’s deity designed viruses with no ill intent, if you can believe that, then maybe viruses actually possess minds and free will and sinned, therefore they became evil and are doing the devil’s work. That’s why today there are good(?) viruses and bad viruses, good bacteria and bad bacteria, etc.

  7. On what day of creation week were viruses created? Are they plants, like grasses and fruit trees (day 3)? Are fish or sea monsters or birds (day 5)?
    Are they beasts of the field or cattle (day 6)?
    The Bible has no mention of microbes. Genesis does not make room for things like parasites which are not of the elements land, sea or air.
    To say that they were created on creation week is pure speculation – how do you know, you weren’t there – and the only witness has decided that we do not need to know. (As is the case for anything that was no known to Ancient New Easterners.)

  8. Charles Deetz ;)

    @TomS And where in the bible did it explain about good and bad anything except people? This hack is just making stuff up.Not a philosopher, not a liar, and not a good fiction writer. All this drivel based on the assumption that god is good all the time, despite the evidence in the bible that he wasn’t.

  9. @abeastwood: If Ham wanted to win over minds and hearts, he’d be well-advised to put the ark on hold and turn all the money collected so far (at least to the extent he can legally do so) to fight ebola, whether it’s giving it to MSF (Ken Ham, if you’re reading this, you probably know MSF as Doctors Without Borders) or toward the development of a vaccine, or any genuine effort to stop this disease before it kills half the world.

    Any use of the money along these lines would be far better than publishing the gibberish of Andrew Fabish.

  10. The whole truth

    I would really like to see Hambo and the rest of the creobot goons at AIG, ICR, and other religious organizations/churches get infected with ebola, especially if they would refuse treatment with modern, scientifically derived, medical treatments and rely only on praying to their chosen, so-called ‘God’ to cure the infection. Hambo and his ilk won’t rely only on prayer though, because he and they don’t actually have ‘faith’ in their chosen, allegedly merciful, loving, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, so-called ‘God’.

  11. Diogenes Lamp

    “I would really like to see Hambo and the rest of the creobot goons at AIG, ICR, and other religious organizations/churches get infected with ebola”

    That’s enough TWT. Calm down and have a cookie, and let’s hope our opponents live long enough to see the error of their ways.

  12. Andrew Fubarich deflects—

    “The question becomes one of whether there is any kind of good that can come from viruses.”

    No. The question eminently remains why an allegedly omni-everything creator deity would, with all that limitless power, benevolence and foresight, saddle the ostensible pinnacle of his/her creation with a pathogen of such egregious horror as Ebola. It’s a bit like a parent planting a minefield in the backyard and letting their kids play there.

    Cretinists should learn that deflections and goalpost-shiftings of the above kind do them a significant disservice.

    Andrew Fubarich imagines—

    “God is not detached from His creation.”

    Epicurus, still unanswered after all these centuries, refutes you.

  13. Dave Godfrey

    “Ultimately, unlike those with a biblical worldview, the secular humanists have no clear moral basis to put themselves at risk to help the downtrodden, sick, and infirm.”

    Yet a great many of those who will be helping the downtrodden, sick and infirm will not have a biblical worldview. Meanwhile, Mr Lie will be building a boat.

  14. So Fabich argues that the Ebola virus is designed, based on his belief that it is irreducibly complex. Therefore, in his view God made it, but only as a “molecular thorn and thistle”. One might think Ebola is more than a minor irritant, like a thorn or thistle, but perhaps from a Christian like Fabich’s viewpoint, killing people with viruses for six thousand years is just that – a minor irritant to punish Adam’s descendants for his eating the wrong food. It’s hard not to wonder what act of horror would ever be sufficient for these people to ever consider that their God might not be an entirely benevolent deity.

    Based on Fabich’s two assertions, that viruses are clearly designed and that God is entirely good, it is obvious to me that viruses must therefore have been designed by another god. That would also explain why they do not appear in the bible – the God of microbes has not told his own creation story yet, and there is no book of ancient lore describing his deeds. Clearly he is a God of questionable moral character, sometimes doing good, sometimes doing the most terrible of evils. Since we know this from the virus’ irreducible complexity, as determined by Assistant Professor Fabich’s work, it can be the first example of the discoveries made possible by Intelligent Design research – the existence of Gods other than the one in the bible. The DI should be proud. I wonder if they will take credit for it.

  15. I wonder if there is also a god of typos. There must be…

  16. Ed (whose typos have been miraculously healed) says: “it is obvious to me that viruses must therefore have been designed by another god.”

    That would be God’s evil brother, Lore.

  17. @Ed

    May I direct your attention to the ancient heresy of Gnosticism, which might be the referent in “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” 1 Timothy 6:20

  18. It’s always fascinated me that fundamentalists/creationists can condemn secular society for being “man-centered” rather than “God-centered,” yet blithely assert that God has punished the entire natural world for man’s sins–and see no conflict.

  19. @Anonymous
    I’m fascinated by the prevalence of the fallacies of composition and division. That is to say, the lack of recognition between the individual and the aggregate, between a man and Homo sapiens/i>.

    This means that so many of the complaints about evolution might better be directed against reproduction.

  20. Ceteris Paribus

    Near the end of the sixth day of Creation, God was understandably quite tired. He was of course wise enough to open the fridge and grab the last bottle of Westmalle Dubble ale, but in His haste to get out of the Garden for the Sabbath, He neglected to put the plate of left over haggis back in.

    By the time Eve arrived to clean up the place the following week, the un-refrigerated haggis had gone a little bit “off” and spawned all the diseases and plagues that would later inflict human-kind after the fall.

    So the reason that there is no mention at all in Genesis about God creating Ebola, is that He hadn’t even given it any thought.

    But yes, God is the One directly responsible for Ebola. If He had just been clear headed enough to put the damn haggis back in the fridge, none of this biological suffering would have happened.

  21. “we understand God is our Creator and Redeemer, not some cosmic killjoy”
    Frankly “cosmic killjoy” is exactly the term I’m thinking of when I read the characteristics creationists attach to their god.

    “The machine analogy strongly supports that these were intelligently designed and meet the criteria of irreducible complexity.”
    Then I have to thank Fabich for this: he effectively undermines the distinction between creationism and ID that Frank J (mistakenly imo) so important. Yeah, I understand the difference. The similarities are just stronger, as this quote shows.

    “we live in a fallen world.”
    A fallen world created by Fabich’s god, so we are supposed to assume. This specifically includes that tree in the Garden of Eden. So that excuse doesn’t work either. Moreover this is theology, not science. We enjoy the spectacle of a microbiologist dismissing the scientific method. Cool!

    “Originally, viruses most likely were part of the very good creation. ”
    Ah. Because Adam and Eve ate some fruit some virus transformed into ebola. Yeah, that’s cutting edge microbiology.

    “why not let the sick die off so the strong will survive?”
    Neglecting the is-ought fallacy there is also this:

    http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/watching-the-detectives/peter_kropotkin_and_the_evolution

  22. Sounds like a heavenly version of “Kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out to me.

  23. So, Adam and Eve disobeyed, and God, among other things, changed originally “very good” things such as ebola, HIV, malaria, smallpox, schistosomiasis, liver flukes, and syphilis (among thousands of others) into the horrors they are today. Sounds like he’s a [redacted]ing psychopathic [redacted]hole.