To read it and then accept it requires one to remove his brain, toss it to the ground, stomp on it, and then embrace an unthinking life of mindless drool. That decision has been made by everyone who works at AIG.
They have just posted Is AiG and Its Statement of Faith Anti-Science? To anyone possessed of a rational mind, the question answers itself.
But does it? Today we’re presented with a very long essay which attempts to justify AIG’s anti-rational manifesto. It was written by Frost Smith, about whom we know nothing, but we’ve talked about his work at AIG a time or two before –for example: AIG: Chicken Necks, Dinosaurs, & the Flood.
Here are some excerpts from Smith’s defense of AIG’s intellectual code (or straitjacket), with bold font added by us. He begins with a question:
Secularists with an agenda often misrepresent and accuse Answers in Genesis of being anti-science. Are we?
Then he lovingly explains:
[I]f by science one is talking about unobserved and non-repeatable assertions from extrapolated data based on secular humanistic presuppositions — that have biblical alternatives that explain the data — then we are anti-that when it demands to be the only acceptable explanation. It has often fallen on deaf ears, but we’ve repeatedly explained the difference between historical and operational science. The sort of misguided science based on evolutionary ideas sadly isn’t limited to historical science, but we will start there.
Aaaargh!! We’ve discussed that bogus dichotomy in Common Creationist Claims Confuted, in the section titled “Operational” science vs. “Historical” (origins) science, so we’ll skip a lot of Smith’s labored attempt to justify his position. Let’s read on:
[W]e have a list of doctrinal points that are contrary to naturalist and Darwinian dogma (i.e., the religion of humanism), and a clear statement that we believe these things are foundational to understanding what we observe in nature and cannot be contradicted. But none of this indicates that we cannot do scientific inquiry and are anti-science. And we stand by this. As far as it being “unscientific,” I offer the following. Naturalists (who hold the humanistic belief that nature is all there is, hence denying that God exists) basically have an atheistic worldview and also have a “Statement of Belief” related to origins:
Then he lists several claims of “naturalists” which he asserts are merely doctrinal beliefs, including:
• The universe is 13.7 billion years old with primitive biological life on Earth evolving about 4 billion years ago, with man arriving only in the last few hundred-thousand years.
• The days in Genesis may correspond to geologic ages, but are not six  consecutive twenty-four  hour days of creation.
• The Noachian Flood was not a real event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment was laid down over long periods of time.
• The gap theory has no basis in science, though some find comfort in it.
After that he asks:
Why is one [set of beliefs] better than another? Both are dogmatic and jealously guarded with deeply held beliefs and presuppositions. But one has a logical foundation for scientific inquiry and one does not. Let’s delve into this subject more deeply.
Smith explains why his arbitrary beliefs are more logical than those of the “naturalists”:
The Christian has a good reason for scientific inquiry into creation in all fields — even origins — since we, of all people, have experienced God’s love toward us and His working (often miraculously) in our lives, and therefore want to know more about Him and to glorify Him. The naturalist really has only the desire of knowledge (that Christians also have) to spur himself into study — and even that is optional! And one might ask why the obtaining of knowledge is all that important if we’re just puny accidents in a random part of a huge universe who exist for a nanosecond in the grand scheme of its history, coming from and returning to nothing more than stardust at best.
Yes, only the creation scientists at AIG are truly motivated to engage in scientific inquiry. You, dear reader, have no reason to care about anything.
We’re going to skip most of Smith’s essay, because it’s too ghastly even for us, but you may find it entertaining. Jumping down to near the end, he declares:
Those who deny evolution are often painted with a broad brush implying we’re not normal people with educations, intelligence, or even social graces. It’s often easier to dismiss everything with the label creationist as trumped-up quackery than to examine what it really is, who we really are, or what we really say and believe. But we urge everyone to at least examine the claims of evolution and naturalism to see how they are intellectually unsatisfying as well as incompatible with what God says about our world.
So there you are, dear reader. Smith has presented what he thinks is a powerful defense of AIG’s Statement of Faith. We urge you to study his essay carefully. Then to let us know if you can refute it.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.