AIG Defends Creationist Delusions

This could keep us talking for a week. At the Biologos website they have a very good article: 10 Misconceptions about Evolution.

It’s a good list of creationist clunkers, but of course it’s not all-inclusive. We write about the items on their list and loads of other howlers all the time, and none are new to you. They’re all neatly debunked at the TalkOrigins excellent and exhaustive Index to Creationist Claims. The only thing we need to do here is list them:

1. Evolution claims that we evolved from monkeys.

2. If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?

3. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution

4. No new information can be added to DNA through natural processes.

5. Evolution is a theory in crisis.

6. There are no transitional fossils.

7. Evolution is merely “Historical Science” and therefore can’t be tested or confirmed.

8. Evolution is man’s word, Creationism is God’s word.

9. The plain reading of Scripture clearly supports six day Creationism.

10. Christian scholars accept the Evolutionary Creation position out of the desire for professional advancement.

That article at Biologis has infuriated the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo). They just posted a rebuttal, written by Avery Foley, about whom we know nothing: Misconceptions About Creation.

That’s right — AIG is defending all ten of those clunkers and howlers. Their post is pure comedy gold — as well as being a great lesson in why one should never debate with, or even talk to, a hard-core professional creationist. We know you’ll want to read AIG’s entire post, so we won’t go through their defense of all ten items. We’ll only give you brief excerpts from a couple of them. Here we go, starting with the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

Evolutionists have offered various theories of how the naturalistic origin and development of life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. One approach is to note that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems.

[…]

However, these inputs [exchanges of both matter and energy with the surrounding environment] are insufficient in themselves to circumvent the second law of thermodynamics. The direction of the chemical reactions normally is decay from the more complex to simpler molecules, the opposite of what living things require to exist. Given this, the appeal to an open system to rescue the day for evolution is not demonstrated and amounts to hand-waving and gross extrapolation.

Here’s one more — the alleged absence of transitional fossils:

[The evolutionist] argues that there are “gobs of these in the fossil record.” But what there really are in the fossil record are billions of fossils that need to be interpreted. And how you interpret them depends on your worldview. … A biblical creationist will go and look at the exact same fossil and reach an entirely different conclusion, that this is a fully formed organism that belonged to one of the original kinds God created, because we have an entirely different starting point — the true history revealed in God’s Word.

That’s all we’re going to give you. For the rest of them, you’ll have to read AIG’s article for yourself. It’s great weekend entertainment.

Copyright © 2015. 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

16 responses to “AIG Defends Creationist Delusions

  1. Avery Foley

    I am a freelance writer for Answers in Genesis-US but I live in Ontario, Canada. I graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science in Religion from Liberty University and recently finished my Masters of Theological Studies from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.

    http://thecreationclub.com/author/averyfoley/

    Wondrous credentials indeed.

  2. Richard Bond

    The direction of the chemical reactions normally is decay from the more complex to simpler molecules,

    Rubbish. If that were true, all molecules would end up as separate elements. That “normally” is a weasel word that allows AIG to claims that they are not actually lying. They are afraid of actual maths. The second law means that chemical reactions go in the direction that reduces free energy, which means that complex compounds can form, under the right conditions.

  3. The piteous howling here by AiG’s Avery Foley could itself be considered evidence of our simian kinship–specifically, the tendency for some males to compensate for other, ah, deficiencies: Big monkey voice ‘means less sperm’

  4. a fully formed organism
    The hydra heads of creationist arguments. Chop off one and more arise.

    Biologists don’t claim that there are some “not fully formed organisms” which are the transitional forms. Each species represents a solution to existence. There is no imperfection which marks a transition. There is no drive to improvement in evolution (that being one of the failings of concepts of evolution before Darwin).

  5. According to the science denier Danny Faulkner (quoted by Foley on the topic of the Second Law of Thermodynamics):
    “However, these inputs are insufficient in themselves to circumvent the second law of thermodynamics. The di-rection of the chemical reactions normally is decay from the more complex to simpler molecules, the opposite of what living things require to exist. Given this, the appeal to an open system to rescue the day for evolution is not demonstrated and amounts to hand-waving and gross extrapolation.”

    However, AiG say they believe in ‘rapid speciation’ following all those pairs of animals disembarking from the (original) Ark:
    https://answersingenesis.org/answers-bible-curriculum/media-supplements/rapid-speciation/
    Surely all that claimed genetic information present in just TWO felines – leading to all of today’s lions and tigers and other cat species plus any extinct ones – must somehow have circumvented the alleged problem arising from increasing/not decreasing entropy? And if rapid speciation (within ‘kinds’) is possible and indeed occurs (most species within the same broad animal families CANNOT interbreed and produce hybrids because the species diverged too long ago), why is evolution ‘impossible’?

    Mind you, AiG require an explanation to explain all the vast number of (unbiblical) extinctions that have allegedly occurred within the last 4,500 years. Perhaps the Faulkner untruths about the Second Law might help AiG in that task? Though they would probably prefer to opine that cavemen clubbed most of the dinosaurs to death.

    The biggest misconception regarding the YEC viewpoint on creation? That it is truthful. Rather it is layers of lies employed to ‘refute’ the international scientific consensus regarding origins.

  6. Mike Elzinga

    Foley quoting Faulkner, who claims:

    “The inputs are matter and energy (required to bond the more complex molecules), which is why living things are open systems. However, these inputs are insufficient in themselves to circumvent the second law of thermodynamics. The direction of the chemical reactions normally is decay from the more complex to simpler molecules, the opposite of what living things require to exist. Given this, the appeal to an open system to rescue the day for evolution is not demonstrated and amounts to hand-waving and gross extrapolation.”

    Emphasis added to Faulkner’s misconceptions.

    The second law of thermodynamics “argument” was a favorite of Duane Gish who used it to beat up on biology teachers. This bogus claim was thoroughly debunked immediately as it came roaring out of the “scientific” creationist’s gate early in the 1970s. ID/creationists now “caution” their followers not to use the “argument,” nevertheless they use it anyway with the kind of screw-ups Faulkner is showing us here.

    The fundamental issue ID/creationists cannot get through their thick, sophistry-laden skulls is that matter condenses; and that condensing requires the spreading around of energy, namely, the second law of thermodynamics.

    None of the ID/creationists understands the relationship between the thermal kinetic energies of atoms and molecules and their binding energies when it comes to complex assemblies of these constituents into organic compounds. They still think that junkyard parts, dice, coin flips, and arrangements of ASCII characters are legitimate stand-ins for the properties and behaviors of atoms and molecules; hence their pseudoscience of “Complex Specified Information” and “irreducible complexity” as confirmation of what their pseudoscience of the second law “forbids.”

    So, ID/creationism in a nutshell is that the ID/creationist “second law of thermodynamics” says complex systems can’t occur (Dembski’s “Filter”) and CSI “confirms” it.

    I doubt that it has ever occurred to them to wonder why Dembski didn’t get the 2013 Nobel Prize in chemistry.

  7. @Reflectory Oooohh. The Cretin Club (or Creation Club) page where Avery Foley boasts of his summa cum laude from Liberty University (snicker) has a little note at the bottom:

    Copyright David Rives Ministries 2014

    Watch out — duplicating this copyrighted boast may be a violation of copyright law. We wouldn’t want to rile David Rives — he might get so upset that he soils his Sunday school suit!

  8. The depths of their delusion is so great that it can be considered as with out bottom.

  9. Dawkins dealt with the Second Law in ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’. Sarfati failed to say anything against what Dawkins stated on that subject in his alleged refutation ‘The Greatest Hoax on Earth’.

  10. @Hideo Gump

    The Cretin Club (or Creation Club) page where Avery Foley boasts of his summa cum laude from Liberty University (snicker) has a little note at the bottom:

    Copyright David Rives Ministries 2014

    That’s made me laugh louder than I have all week.

  11. Canada doesn’t always give us creationists, but when it does, in the form of here Foley, and the Discovery Institute’s esteemed Denyse O’Sneery, they tend to be especially stupid.

  12. @Realhog – Happy to see that my post brought some joy your way. Some days SC’s posts and the follow-up comments are just an “ark load” of fun!

  13. Charles Deetz ;)

    What’s with all the misplaced hyphens? That’s some pathetic cut and paste job … beyond the pathetic hack job writing. Why does a fossil have to be ‘fully formed’, as if they think transitional animals somehow have half a leg.

    I am a fan of the archaeopteryx fossil shown at the Biologos post, because it should force a creationist ‘with God’s View’ to do flips trying to explain why it is simply a bird kind… or a dinosaur kind. So every time Avery makes that smug comment about perspective, I want to wave that picture in his face.

  14. [The evolutionist] argues that there are “gobs of [transitional fossils] in the fossil record.” But what there really are in the fossil record are billions of fossils that need to be interpreted. And how you interpret them depends on your worldview. … A biblical creationist will go and look at the exact same fossil and reach an entirely different conclusion, that this is a fully formed organism that belonged to one of the original kinds God created, because we have an entirely different starting point — the true history revealed in God’s Word.

    Funny how creationists insist fossils need to be “interpreted” (their way, of course) while the Bible does not–except when it does, as in the book of Ravings, er, I mean Revelations.

  15. I am a fan of the archaeopteryx fossil shown at the Biologos post, because it should force a creationist ‘with God’s View’ to do flips trying to explain why it is simply a bird kind… or a dinosaur kind. So every time Avery makes that smug comment about perspective, I want to wave that picture in his face.

    They’d simply say it’s a “kind” of its own which went extinct after the Flood–or perhaps is still alive today, on the giant South American plateau discovered by Prof. George Edward Challenger in 1912.

  16. @Eric Lipps:
    Nice observation about “interpretations”. I’ll have to keep that in mind.