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.