AIG Talks About Ebola, Again

Our last post about AIG and Ebola was AIG Can Solve the Ebola Problem. Today they’re at it again — no doubt to serve the needs of the millions of people who turn to AIG for information about such things.

The new article is titled Is the Ebola Epidemic Evolution in Action? It was written by three of the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG), the online ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo).

The three authors are: Elizabeth Mitchell (a creationist gynecologist), Georgia Purdom (this is her AIG bio page), and Tommy Mitchell (here’s his AIG bio page). Yes, it appears that Elizabeth and Tommy Mitchell are married to each other — a creationist power couple.

Most of the article seems to be standard information about Ebola, but we’ll skip that because there are more authoritative sources. What we’ll do here is give you the parts that are pure creationism. Okay, let’s get started, with some bold font added by us for emphasis. One of their introductory paragraphs asks:

In the past, outbreaks have remained geographically confined to the regions where the organism that harbors them lives. Why is this one different? Is Ebola wielding the power of Darwinian evolution over medical science?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What kind of a question is that? The kind that would occur only to a creationist. Skipping a load about case histories, symptoms, etc., they mention that the virus mutates, and then they say:

But is this evolution? No. When a virus or microorganism mutates, it might change some of its traits, producing some mutant copies better able to face the challenges in its environment and some less able. Obviously the ones better able to cope survive and become the “parents” of the next generation. But they do not change into different kinds of viruses or microorganisms. Ebola virus remains Ebola virus. This is not an example of molecules-to-man evolution.

Got that? It’s not turning into a crocoduck. Mutation isn’t evolution. Let’s read on:

What about concerns recently mentioned in the news that Ebola could evolve into an airborne virus? Many experts doubt this will occur. Why? Well, even though viruses mutate rapidly, they do not acquire the genetic information to build brand new structures that would make them into a different kind of virus.

You can relax, dear reader. The AIG creation scientists assure you that Ebola won’t become airborne. They explain why:

[W]hen we look at the reason many experts believe the virus will not be able to make this leap, we can see it is the distinction between molecules-to-man evolution (which does not happen) and variation within a created kind (which happens all the time) that makes this confidence possible. The fact that organisms are unable to gain new genetic information to add structures and functions leading them to become a different kind of organism, from the human point of view, is a very good thing.

Skipping over some stuff, they ask a very important question:

Why Did God Make Viruses?

You know the usual creationist answer, but it bears repeating. They say:

Because we are confident that the original world was good until the curse of man’s sin fell upon it, we know that the original viruses — like the original kinds of bacteria and all other microorganisms — must have been harmless and served useful purposes. Over the past 6,000 years many disease-causing variations have developed in viruses and indeed in all classes of microbes. However, the more science learns about this hard-to-see part of our world, the more hints we see that these things were designed as a vital part of our world.

Ebola isn’t God’s fault — it’s yours! Here’s more:

Ebola is indeed the latest challenge in this sin-cursed world, and a very dangerous one. But it is not powered by Darwinian evolution.

Ah, if it’s “not powered by Darwinian evolution,” we have nothing to fear. Then we come to the final paragraph, and it’s the funniest thing we’ve ever seen in an AIG article. Here it comes:

This information is intended for general education purposes only and is not intended as professional medical advice. The information should not be relied upon as a substitute for medical advice from your doctor or other health care professional. If you have specific questions about any medical condition, diagnosis, or treatment, you should consult your doctor or other healthcare provider or go to a hospital.

That was priceless. Although AIG insists that they know far more about science than all those horrible secularists and evolutionists do, and although two of the three authors of their latest Ebola article are (or were) physicians, they have enough sense to caution their drooling readers not to rely on them. They don’t need to worry. The only people who take AIG seriously are already brain-dead.

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

15 responses to “AIG Talks About Ebola, Again

  1. “Well, even though viruses mutate rapidly, they do not acquire the genetic information to build brand new structures that would make them into a different kind of virus.”
    It is, unsurprisingly, rather more complicated than that. Ebola COULD, in fact, evolve to become an airborne virus and has the capacity to do so, but in doing so it would lose so much of its ability to effectively infect a host that it would become ineffective if it happened in a series of short steps. In other words, it can evolve to become effective and airborne, but it will take a long, long time. (And, of course, it’s under no pressure to do so – it’s doing just fine in its current form)

    At least, so says my buddy at the CDC.

  2. So, AiG trots out their resident gynecologist to opine about how a virus might mutate. The hilarity of this spectacle is overridden by the serious and deadly nature of the subject.

    I hope that Dr. Kennedy wades in here . . . . I’d be very interested in his take on what I view to be utterly irresponsible behavior on the part of the kooks at AiG.

  3. Derek Freyberg

    I never thought AIG would need what the folks at “Science-Based Medicine” refer to as the quack-Miranda warning at the end of one of their homilies, but there’s always a first time.

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    Without understanding viruses, could we protect ourselves from transmission … not likely. So if this virus is more than 150 years old and still in its current deadly state, it could have easily spread like the black plague. Without looking at history, I assume this has never occurred. Which is decent evidence that it might not have existed back then.

    Oh, do I hear the quack-cleared doctors saying is just changed within its kind to be more transmissible? Maybe. But what kind was it then … were you there?

  5. Derek Freyberg

    To be complete, what SBM refers to as the quack-Miranda warning is the statement at the bottom of the ad for a nutritional supplement, right after all of the promises that say it is good for your xxx-health, that says something like”These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to treat any medical condition, just to make us lots of money.” But the AIG disclaimer is fairly equivalent.

  6. AiG’s quack-Miranda statement speaks volumes as to their real limits of confidence in their faith. Thanks, Derek, for bringing this additional source of giggles to the forefront.

  7. If viruses only lose information, as the AiG non-biologists maintain, then logically they would become completely ineffective over time. Ebola (an RNA virus) has only seven genes to begin with, which does not seem to be much information to lose. (per Wiki)

    Either AiG’s god is offsetting the deterioration due to mutation, or inserting new info into the genome, to maintain its deadly nature.

    Since viruses are the most numerous and diverse forms of “life”… it is rather surprising that they aren’t mentioned in the bible. They are a lot worse than thistles.

  8. Why did Noah bring those two ebola viruses onto the Ark in the first place? Seems it would have saved everybody a lot of trouble if he hadn’t. Sheesh.

  9. @Mark G: And which one of the four or five humans alleged to be on Noah’s ark was the ebola virus vector? And since we know, from the astonishingly accurate account in the bibble that they were at sea for longer than the incubation period of the virus, it must have been quite a mess (not to mention all the poop from the ainimals). I wonder what Hambone’s ark will do to simulate that? Another reason, if anyone needs one, not to visit said ark.

  10. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    @Mark

    Indeed, and Ray Comfort would like to know how long a male ebola had to wait around for a female ebola to come along so they can happily ebolize.

    And if evolution is true, we should see ebolateria popping up everywhere. Checkmate !

    (also, lol at AIG’s quack miranda statement.)

  11. AIG’s “experts” tell us,

    When a virus or microorganism mutates, it might change some of its traits, producing some mutant copies better able to face the challenges in its environment and some less able. Obviously the ones better able to cope survive and become the “parents” of the next generation. But they do not change into different kinds of viruses or microorganisms. Ebola virus remains Ebola virus. This is not an example of molecules-to-man evolution.

    Well, duh. No evolutionist believes we would see, or have experienced, “molecules to man evolution” in anything but a time frame of billions of years.

    But notice: AIG’s very own creationists are admitting that evolution by natural selection takes place! They just don’t want to admit that it can occur in anything but microorganisms, though they offer no rational reason why it should work in microbes but not in larger, more complex organisms.

    They’re cheating, offering a more sophisticated version of the old saw, “I’ll accept evolution when I see a monkey turn into a man”–something which, if it somehow occurred, would have nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. (And no doubt if it did happen, creationists would be among the first to point that out.)

    Creationism isn’t scientific dissent; it’s fraud, pure and simple.

  12. Ebola virus mutations. Are they bad? Evil? Or do they simply show evolution at work? What would make the virus more virulent is any mutation that helps ebola continue its existence, true?

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ebola-already-mutated-more-300-182300353.html;_ylt=AwrSyCX6xUVUwBIAshrQtDMD

  13. “In the past, outbreaks have remained geographically confined to the regions where the organism that harbors them lives. Why is this one different? Is Ebola wielding the power of Darwinian evolution over medical science?”

    Where were these ignoramuses during history class, elementary school history at that. Don’t they know about Spanish Influenza, The Black Plague, The Bubonic Plagues, and a whole host of unknown diseases. Not to mention the great die off that reduced the number breeding human pairs to as little as 1500 for reasons that are still unclear to scientists even today. I mean seriously how much time can you spend in the boys and girls room investigating your own or anyone else’s Microbrachius dicki.

  14. @DavidK
    Either the rise of Ebola shows intelligent supernatural design, or it shows that undirected natural causes can result in a complex result.

  15. If Ebola is god’s work, I think we should be really afraid. Last time this god drowned everyone because he was angry.