AIG Proves That We Went to The Moon

You’ve all heard at least some of the Moon landing conspiracy theories that have been floating around for decades. How would you react if you encountered one of those Moon landing denial people? There’s always the Buzz Aldrin rebuttal, which we greatly admire, but it wouldn’t be appropriate to endorse his method.

To our great surprise, the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — appear not to be Moon landing deniers. They just posted Did We Really Land on the Moon?, in which they not only say that we did land on the Moon, but they explain how to rebut the deniers.

It was written by Danny Faulkner. Here’s AIG’s biographical information about him. They say he taught physics and astronomy until he joined AIG. His undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University — an impressive credential indeed. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Many people remember watching on TV the remarkable events of July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon. Or did they? Not according to those who believe in the moon landing conspiracy. According to this theory, men never walked on the moon — NASA faked the Apollo moon landings.

Before we proceed, try to imagine your Curmudgeon’s experience reading this AIG article. From the title through that opening paragraph, we assumed that AIG thinks the Moon landings were a hoax. Why wouldn’t we make that assumption? They deny the theory of evolution, the age of the Earth, and almost everything else learned by science that contradicts the bible — so why wouldn’t people like that deny that we’ve been to the Moon? Well, the bible doesn’t say we can’t go to the Moon, but it certainly doesn’t suggest that such a thing is possible. Besides, the Earth was made for us — not the Moon. [Addendum: There’s also the fate of those who tried to build the Tower of Babel to reach to the heavens.]

But AIG surprised us. Danny says:

Over the years, a number of books about the supposed hoax of the Apollo moon landings have proliferated. The climax of these activities may have been the 2001 broadcast of the Fox television network documentary, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? These books and this documentary film present all sorts of evidence in support of the conspiracy theory. Many of these are easy to refute.

It’s the same with creationist websites. Let’s read on:

There have been numerous attempts to debunk these sorts of arguments, albeit with little success, because the moon landing conspiracy theory continues to gain followers.

AIG doesn’t see the parallel to their own situation, and that’s what makes this so entertaining. Danny continues:

But conspiracies seem to have an odd attraction for many people, for many other conspiracy theories abound. People appear naturally to be attracted to conspiracies. Conspiracies certainly are far more interesting than the possibility that things are as they seem.

The analogy with creationists’ belief in a Darwinist conspiracy is obvious, but Danny seems oblivious. This is splendid irony! Here’s more:

The Apollo moon landing theory has gained some traction among Christians too. Since so many scientists are wrong about the origin and age of the world, it may be that many Christians assume that the same scientists are wrong about landing on the moon too. Sometimes it seems that scientists want to stamp out any dissent on certain issues, such as evolution. This heavy-handed approach can look a bit conspiratorial, so Christians may be justified in being at least a bit skeptical about many things.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The scientists are lying about evolution, so why not the Moon landings too? And why doesn’t AIG join the Moon landing deniers? Get ready, because Danny has an explanation:

It is tempting to give a detailed rebuttal of many of the claims made by those who support the idea that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. However, that has been done many times already.

As with creationism. Come on, Danny — why do you think Moon landing denial is different? Here it comes:

There is a much more straightforward approach. Two of the twelve men who walked on the moon later were born again Christians, Charlie Duke, and the late Jim Irwin. Both of these dedicated Christians wrote books in which they shared their testimonies and their experiences as astronauts. To doubt the Apollo moon landings amounts to accusing two Christian brothers of lying about the biggest thing that ever happened to them, of course apart from their salvation.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! There are numerous Christians who have no problem with evolution — see the National Center for Science Education’s list of Statements from Religious Organizations supporting evolution — but Danny ignores them. And now we come to the end:

The biblical standard for establishing such a matter is two or three witnesses [scripture references]. These two Christian astronauts certainly suffice as reliable witnesses, so we can be assured that the Apollo astronauts indeed walked on the moon.

There you have it, dear reader. That’s your proof. Verily, no one can deny that we went to the Moon.

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

19 responses to “AIG Proves That We Went to The Moon

  1. “How would you react ….”
    I would answer that the Moon itself is a hoax. Here is the proof:

    Now I have to find myself two reborn christian witnesses …..

  2. michaelfugate

    I agree – how would one decide if two or three Christian brothers said it was a hoax? Someone is lying, but which one?

  3. Last Thursday was 11/19/2015. So we didn’t go to the moon or do anything else on 7/20/1969.😉

  4. Yeah right Danny….like you can walk in a “light in the sky” Ha ha ha ha ha!

  5. “The biblical standard for establishing such a matter is two or three witnesses.”

    Biblically then: aliens, Bigfoot, ghosts, and leprechauns are real.

  6. Ceteris Paribus

    Re: “The biblical standard for establishing such a matter is two or three witnesses.”

    Some years back a friend who had attended a Christian seminary related that it was required that they travel around in groups of two or three, lest a lone person get into some kind of un-biblical mischief that would merit dismissal. The counter ploy of the seminarians was that they simply invented interesting “activities” which involved two or three participants at the same time.

  7. I know there are some lawyers who read this blog:

    I wonder what the biblical rules of evidence are?

    Hearsay admissible?

  8. Charles Deetz ;)

    Can we get two christian witnesses who have seen and/or understand transitional fossils to talk to Danny? Or two christian geologists to explain why the Grand Canyon took a long time to be etched from the earth? Etc. I guarantee we can find these guys, but I don’t think they’ll be christian enough for Danny.

  9. Reflectory: “Biblically then: aliens, Bigfoot, ghosts, and leprechauns are real.”

    Discoveroid Michael Medved thinks that Bigfoot exists. Unfortunately for AiG Medved does not think that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior.

  10. SC: “To our great surprise…”

    Why is it a surprise? They’re not geocentrists either. As TomS keeps reminding us, the most literal reading of Genesis is geocentric.

    It makes perfect sense if one sees anti-evolution activists not necessarily as believing anything, but as claiming whatever they think will sell to their target audience. AiGs audience may be small, the ~10% committed YECs plus another ~20% sympathetic OECs, but few these days buy the geocentrism, no moon landing, or flat earth. Discoveroids have a much larger target audience (essentially everyone), so they make almost no claims for any alternate origins story. So ironically, the DI is more friendly to moon landing deniers, geocentrists and flat-earthers than AiG is.

  11. There are numerous Christians who have no problem with evolution — see the National Center for Science Education’s list of Statements from Religious Organizations supporting evolution — but Danny ignores them. And now we come to the end:

    But according to creationists, those aren’t “real” Christians, since where evolution and the age of the earth are concerned they don’t accept “the truth of the Bible.”

    Similar objections were once raised by fundamentalists against racial equality, on account of the curse of Ham, even though the Bible nowhere associates that curse with black skin. Most fundies prefer to tiptoe past that bit of history these days.

  12. From this book in the Penguin History of Europe series:
    Tim Blanning
    The Pursuit of Glory: Europe 1648-1815
    Viking, 2007

    I learned (page 155) that Russian peasants would not accept potatoes as food, in part because they were not mentioned in the Bible.

  13. michaelfugate

    After reading Genesis, why would literalists even accept Ptolemy? I don’t think there is anything about a planet floating in space with other bodies orbiting.

  14. @michaelfugate:
    I think that any serious Biblical scholar would say that the world of the Bible is small and flat under a solid firmament of the sky.
    But even in ancient times, it was realized that the world is round, and had no problem with quite free interpretations of the Bible.
    Today’s lliteralists often say that when it is clear that the Bible is speaking poetically or metaphorically, that one does not need to read it literally, and I think that they would say that the flat-Earth passages are such exceptions. They might point to those many ancient writers as evidence of that.

    Galileo pointed out that, because of technical reasons, the Ptolemaic model did not agree with the details of the story of the Sun standing still for Joshua. (If the Sun stood still, then the day would be shorter!) Needless to say, that did not help Galileo in his troubles with the Church.

    As far as evolution is concerned, the problem for the creationists and the Bible is that the Bible has nothing to say about the fixity of species (or even “kinds”). (The only mention of things being unchanged from the beginning that I am aware of is put in the mouth of the doubters, in the Second Epistle of Peter, chapter 3.) The whole of “baraminology” is just a 20th century invention without any Biblical basis.

  15. You’re missing the granddaddy of all shows on the topic.

    “Alternative 3” was produced by the BBC and broadcast only once in 1977 – the show was intended to be a hoax modelled after Orson Welles War of the Worlds. Tremendously well done (even the announcer was a well known UK television personality which gave it a lot of weight). I saw it because I was in Canada the week it was aired there.

  16. michaelfugate

    TomS, many ancient cultures believed the sun rode in a barge or chariot across the sky and made it way from west to east through subterranean passages. Why would the OT writers believe something more sophisticated? Why would these beliefs be metaphorical?

  17. As far as the beliefs being metaphorical, there are two reasons.

    First of all, we are talking about a culture in which people were given to treating things metaphorically. They were comfortable with the natural world itself being full of metaphors. Why shouldn’t they recognize that the traditional lore be open to the play of imagination?

    On the other hand, there is the influence of the Hellenistic culture. They knew the Greek-language thinkers had ideas about things like the shape of the Earth.

    That is my take on why. Whether or not that is adequate, we know that they did it. We have the evidence There are the writings that show that they were given to free play of imagination when treating the foundation texts of their religion.

  18. michaelfugate

    But the earth, did they know it was spherical and orbited the sun or did they not? The four corners and the pillars and the holes in the dome – metaphors or not? Sun standing still – metaphor or not?

  19. It depends on when.
    As far as the motion of the Earth, the most sophisticated thinkers of antiquity, with very few exceptions, accepted that the Earth was motionless. There was no reason for anyone to think that the Bible was saying anything else. .
    But the the idea of the Earth being spherical, that seems to have been accepted without significant reservation, by the time of Aristotle in Hellenic culture. It seems to have been recognized in Jewish and Christian writings by the first couple of centuries CE.
    What I find interesting is that the idea of fixity of species was something totally anachronistic until the rise of modern science. It isn’t in the Bible.