We’re writing about this one because it’s such a classic example of creation science. It’s titled How Did Snakes Get Their Venomous Bite?, and it appears at the blog of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.
Whether ol’ Hambo actually wrote the thing isn’t entirely clear, because although it’s signed “Ken,” at the end it says: “This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.” Actual authorship isn’t important. What is worth noticing is the style and the flow of the argumentation. It’s a fine example of creation science, so it’s worth a look to observe how it’s done. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and Hambo’s scripture references omitted:
If God called His creation “very good,” then why does it include dangerous venomous snakes today? Are secular researchers on the right track as they examine the snake genome in order to find clues about gene evolution in humans? The answer is clear when you start with God’s Word and remember that there are two kinds of science.
Ol’ Hambo is saying two things: (1) the bible — “God’s word” — is the key to understanding everything; and (2) although some science is acceptable to people like Hambo, because the bible has nothing to say about it, other science — anything that contradicts Genesis — must be ignored, because it’s “man’s word.”
We’ve discussed Hambo’s “two kinds of science” in Common Creationist Claims Confuted in the section titled “Operational” science vs. “Historical” (origins) science. And if you haven’t seen it, take a look at The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Creation Science.
Okay, back to Hambo and snake venom. He mentions an article in Nature World News: Snakes: The Evolution of their Venomous Bite, and he dismisses its research into the genetics of snakes because:
[E]xamining these genes to try and understand how genes supposedly evolved in humans or how snakes supposedly evolved their venom is a different kind of science — historical science. This kind of science is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable. What you believe about Earth’s history will largely determine how you interpret the evidence.
Hambo’s creation science depends only on what he believes, and that’s entirely based on his interpretation of the bible. Let’s read on:
There is no need to appeal to naturalistic processes to explain the complex structures and elements necessary for venom production and delivery. Venomous snakes show clear examples of having been designed. But how should we understand killer designs from a loving Creator?
That’s the same loving creator who destroyed the Earth in Noah’s Flood and who gave us Ebola, cancer, and loads of other nasty things. The problem of God’s quirky behavior always pops up, and creationists like Hambo have a handy answer — it’s not God’s fault, it’s ours. He continues:
Well, Scripture tells us that originally all of creation — including snakes — was “very good.” Genesis also says that the animals (and Adam and Eve) were originally vegetarians. So in a perfect world there was no reason for snakes to kill or harm other creatures with venom. It wasn’t until after Adam and Eve sinned and death and suffering came into the world that defense/attack structures, like venom, were necessary. These structures may have had a good purpose in the original creation and then were used for new purposes after the Fall, or they may have been expressed sometime after the Fall (mediated design) as snakes adapted to a fallen world.
The Discoveroids, who pretend that their “science” isn’t scriptural, don’t have that handy explanation. To them it’s all design anyway — the good, the bad, and the ugly. Here’s more from Hambo:
Either way, deadly venom and the pain, suffering, and death caused by other attack structures are clearly consequences of the Fall and the Curse — not an original part of a “very good” creation!
All clear? Sure it is. Moving along, the article has the usual conclusion:
Whether you start with man’s word or God’s Word makes a huge difference in how you interpret the world around you. If you start with man’s word, then death and suffering have always been part of nature and always will be — they are the very things that are supposed to drive evolution.
What Hambo calls “man’s word” is what we call verifiable evidence. It’s reality. Hambo ignores reality whenever it conflicts with his holy scrolls. And here’s the predictable end:
But if you start with God’s Word, you get an entirely different picture. Death and suffering were not an original part of creation. They are the result of mankind’s sin, and someday they will be removed from creation.
So there you are. If you follow Hambo’s article as a template, you too can write cutting-edge creation science articles. Hey — there’s a market for that kind of thing. So if you get bored with the real world, you can always make a living writing for creationist outfits. And here’s the best part — you don’t need a lab, you don’t need to do research, and you don’t need to know anything. Good deal, huh?
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.