AIG: Creation Science Predictions

The creation scientists at Answers in Genesis are full of delightful surprises. Look what just appeared at their website: The Creation Model Makes Successful Predictions.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What a title! Who wrote it? As you might have guessed, the author is none other than Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), ol’ Hambo himself — the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He’s the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the mind-boggling Creation Museum.

We know how eager you are to learn about creationism’s successful predictions, so let’s get started with some excerpts, and a bit of bold font added by us for emphasis:

There are two primary models of Earth’s history — evolution over millions of years and a young universe specially created by God. Both of these models make scientific predictions, but which one makes successful predictions? Well, as we show in our books, DVDs, and articles, as well as at our conferences, it’s the creation model that makes successful predictions because we start from the truth of God’s Word.

Hambo even gives us some examples:

For example, starting with the Bible, we know there’s only one race — and that’s what science has confirmed. If there really was a worldwide Flood, we should find billions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the Earth. And that’s exactly what we find.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Hey, Hambo, overlooking the fact that creationists came late to the “one race” conclusion, those aren’t predictions. They’re examples of things everybody already knows, about which creationists declare “God did it!” How about — for once! — using your “theory” to predict something that no one has ever seen, like the cosmic microwave background, or the existence of Neptune, or the discovery of a growing list of transitional fossils? Ah well, let’s read on:

When you start with God’s Word, you get successful predictions because observational science, when properly interpreted through the lens of Scripture, always confirms God’s Word.

Uh huh. Yeah. Hambo continues:

Well, our newest research associate, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a graduate of Harvard University, explained in a recent interview how the creation model can be used to make testable predictions that are far more accurate than evolutionary predictions:

[Hambo quotes Jeanson:] Now, one of the things evolutionists commonly challenge us with is, “Well, you’re not scientists. You don’t make testable predictions. You just say ‘God did it, that’s the end of it.” This is a stereotype, a straw man, and it’s not true. For example, the most important question of the evolutionary model is, “How’s evolution supposed to work?” The answer: mutations. Now, young-earth creationists can predict the mutation rate for whatever DNA sequence you want better than the evolutionists can. So, the irony of this, if there’s ever a topic where the evolutionists should excel, that one topic is actually where the creationists are the strongest in terms of the biological model.

Huh? By the way, we recently wrote about Jeanson in this post. Here’s more from Hambo:

So, just like we’ve been showing for years, the creation model makes accurate predictions about observational science. And, of course, this is to be expected because God’s Word is true. Dr. Jeanson explains how this works:

[Hambo quotes Jeanson again:] The reason for this is that we start with the right answer. And if you start with the assumption that animal kinds, or people, or plants, or you name it, fungi, started 6,000 years ago and didn’t evolve over millions of years, you get the right answer. In short, there are far too few genetic differences among species on this planet for them to have been around millions of years. Evolutionists say these guys evolved 50 million years ago, but see if that works. And if it doesn’t work, why should we believe it?

Did you understand that, dear reader? We didn’t either. Here’s one last excerpt from Hambo:

As Dr. Jeanson declared, the creation model makes testable predictions because it starts with the right foundation. Evolutionary models fail because they start with the wrong foundation.

Your Curmudgeon doesn’t know what to say about this. We’ll leave the analysis to you, dear reader.

Copyright © 2016. 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

25 responses to “AIG: Creation Science Predictions

  1. “The reason for this is that we start with the right answer. ” – in other words, the exact OPPOSITE of science, which starts with an observation, then a QUESTION, then a PROPOSED answer, then testing to see if the answer holds up.

  2. Hambo blathers: “As Dr. Jeanson declared, the creation model makes testable predictions because it starts with the right foundation.”
    . . . .Showing yet again how, in the bizzaro world of the fundy, desired conclusions always form the basis of their chain of “logic”.
    If Hambo’s merry band of creationist “scientists” excel at anything, it’s circular logic.

  3. Is there a way for the public to validate someone’s claimed academic credentials? I have a hard time believing that some of these creationist clowns have legitimate advanced degrees, but I might be incorrectly suspicious.

  4. Famed creationist Duane Gish had a degree in biochemistry and apparently did some genuine research work (like Dr. Ben Carson, current GOP presidential contender), but not anything actually connected to evolution. He and his supporters hid behind his academic credentials, just as the Nazis relied on those of Philipp Lenard, a much more highly regarded scientist, in their attempt to discredit the “Jewish” theory of relativity.

  5. Showing yet again how, in the bizzaro world of the fundy, desired conclusions always form the basis of their chain of “logic”.

    But they’re never wrong!

  6. What struck me was this claim:

    There are two primary models of Earth’s history — evolution over millions of years and a young universe specially created by God.

    That is wrong in so many ways.
    In relatively minor ways, such as:Why the change from talking about the Earth to the universe?

    And in major ways: There are only a small number of people who believe that there is a “young universe”, a select portion of Christians, mostly in the USA in the last 50 years or so. They are outnumbered by, for example, hundreds of millions of Hindus, just to mention one “primary model”. Or the many Christians who accept OEC of one sort or another, or creation through evolution. The YECs are trying to claim some sort of privileged status when there are others at least as worthy of consideration.
    Evolution over millions of years is important because it is part of an account for the diversity of life, while there is no known alternative account for the observed diversity (why this, rather than some other pattern). There is no competition in accounting. The YECs are trying to claim status without even trying to complete.
    etc.

  7. Some people can obviously hold two conflicting views at the same time in their brain.
    Kurt Wise is an example. He got a PhD in geology from Havard and believes that the world is 6,000 years old. He tells us: “Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate” (taken from the Wikipedia entry on Kurt Wise).

    You can’t call such a person a “scientist”. You can’t call him a Christian either because he is dishonest. “False” would be a better word.

  8. @Hans
    I find it difficult to credit someone who claims that the Bible over-rides mere human understanding/science in order to reject evolution, yet accepts heliocentrism.
    The Bible more clearly supports the fixity of the Earth, as was universally understood for 2000 years, than the fixity of species, which was unknown for those same 2000 years.

  9. In short, there are far too few genetic differences among species on this planet for them to have been around millions of years. Evolutionists say these guys evolved 50 million years ago, but see if that works.

    Only 50 million years? Has Dr. Neanderthal Jeanson read even a kid’s dinosaur book? Also, haven’t creationists tended to exaggerate the genetic differences between species, in particular between apes and humans?

    Even Dr. J.’s “kinds” can be grouped together into larger super-kinds, which fit into even larger groupings, and so on in a nested pattern that eventually includes all of life. Even starting with the assumption that kinds were created separately doesn’t explain why they all fit together in a pattern. It all comes back to “goddidit”, in the end.

  10. The creep known as Nathaniel Jeanson went to grad school to get credentials that would help him with his evangelism. Like the miscreants Kurt Wise and Jason Lisle, Jeanson makes no bones about getting his degree under false pretenses. To a Liar for Jesus like Jeanson a PhD is simply costume jewelry, something to make him look pretty for the rubes he grifts. These flakes are actually less dangerous to society than the Disco Tooters in that they have no axe to grind; they’re just in it for the money. You won’t see Jeanson lobbying school boards to teach dinosaur husbandry. He’ll be too busy waving his antenna hands in some church basement, lying to children. Hey, it’s a living, right?

  11. @Ed
    If I may borrow a trope from ID –
    There is a complex specfied pattern in taxonomy which demands an account. It is due to
    1) A matter of chance.
    2) Regularity in nature, such as common descent with modification.
    3) Some agency had some purpose intended in somehow, somewhere, some time constructing things this way.

    If (3), does this mean that we should be telling our kids that they were purposely designed to be most similar to chimps and other apes? And that to fulfill the clear goals of their designers, they should act like apes?

    I need not point out that if (2), this has no meaning for how one should act. The fact that I am related to Torquemada, or that my great-uncle was a horse-thief, does not tell me what I should do.

  12. Just now, before coming here, I sent an email about Ham’s latest bout of lying. May I reproduce it (apologies for length and it might repeat points you have made – I’m about to check.)?

    “Extremist spouts silliness in a dogmatic manner in order to sound profound and superior. [Title.]

    https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2016/02/14/creation-model-makes-successful-predictions/

    Who exactly ever predicted – I mean a horrible scientist or non-scientist who started making predictions WITHOUT starting with the Bible plus the ‘lens’ used by Ken Ham and co – that we would never find ANY fossils on Earth?

    However, the Bible never ever mentions fossils. Not once.

    But no doubt this blog will be greeted with delight, joy and triumph on Ken Ham’s Facebook page.

    As to its detailed contents. A ‘recent’ interview by the rather arrogant sounding Dr Nathaniel Jeanson of ‘Answers in Genesis’ to which Ham unfortunately FAILS to provide a link. (I typed Jeanson’s name in a Google News search but found nothing.)

    From the information offered by Ham, can a single recipient of this message identify WHAT successful and truthful prediction Jeanson made? I think anyone who succeeded would deserve a prize. Note that a mere assertion or strongly held opinion – eg about the extent of genetic differences that have been uncovered in or between species – does not a successful prediction make.

    In all seriousness I have never to my knowledge heard of this Dr Jeanson successfully predicting ANYTHING in the realm of biology or other science that was (a) true and (b) not something already asserted in the Bible.

    If nobody (including from AiG) can identify this man’s great achievement that was revealed in that recent interview I would go on to suggest that despite stiff competition, often of course from the non-Christian world, KEN HAM AND ALL THOSE WORKING FOR HIS OUTFIT ARE SOME OF THE BIGGEST LYING FRAUDS ON THIS PLANET.

    Much ado about nothing.

    Want more from Jeanson? Look no further:
    https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2016/01/05/why-dont-more-scientists-believe-creation/
    https://answersingenesis.org/bios/nathaniel-jeanson/

    Or indeed here – which (whilst of course an anti-creationist page) does offer plenty of information but does not refer to anything published by Jeanson in any reputable peer reviewed scientific journal:
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Jeanson

    Though I acknowledge that the second AiG link does refer to Jeanson contributing not only to lots of young earth creationist apologetics publications but also to one or two ‘secular’ technical papers and research abstracts. But did he predict ANYTHING successfully (as proven by testing it) that started with the Bible and which was not predicted by anybody else not starting with the Bible? Answers PLEASE Ken Ham.

    No doubt Jeanson is a clever bloke. But great intellect can be used for dubious ends.

    Ashley Haworth-Roberts
    PS I have not posted this onto the BCSE community forum in case it is thought ‘too’ libellous.”

  13. Please can you confirm whether my attempted comment just now has been received and is being moderated or whether it has vanished into outer darkness somewhere?

    [*Voice from above*] It’s okay. Anything with more than three links is presumed spam. Please forgive the delay.

  14. “It’s okay. Anything with more than three links is presumed spam. Please forgive the delay.”

    Thanks! Feel free to delete the duplicate version just submitted.

    Just as well you approved as I’ve sent the blog to AiG (though there ‘outer darkness’ may well apply and it might be blocked and not actually read).

    Or so I would predict.

  15. The creation model is lousy for predicting things. See again this encounter between Chris Sharpe and Jason Lisle

    Or this example of creationists trying to avoid the conclusions that simple observations would otherwise lead them to.
    The 8,000-year-long BCP chronology appears to be correctly crossmatched, and there is no evidence that bristlecone pines can put on more than one ring per year. The best approach for collapsing this chronology, one that takes into the account the evidence from C-14 dates, is one that factors the existence of migrating ring-disturbing events. Much more must be learned about this phenomenon before this hypothesis can be developed further.

    If the “creation model” was so good at predicting things, why would there be any need to “collapse the chronology” in the first place?

    In contrast, the evolution model does predict things.

  16. Charles Deetz ;)

    Is Hambo stupid or think his followers rubes that he posts this bold claim right after the news was filled with a major scientific discovery that was PREDICTED. Anyone, even his followers, who had heard about this will read this blog post and go ‘hmmm, scientists just predicted something that the bible doesn’t even mention anything about. ‘ And hopefully they think Hambo as silly guy, and his trophy Harvard scientist a fool.

  17. Someone pointed out to me that Jeanson himself had made what appeared to be a sound prediction re mitochondrial DNA – see here:
    https://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/mdna-rate-of-change-match-creationist-predictions-why-this-wont-change-anything/

    I’m not that impressed by the ICR link (or the blog post comments on it) and I replied by email explaining why and referencing this (even if his prediction was accurate I suspect a flawed methodology):
    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3482&p=49018&hilit=mitochondrial#p49018

    Someone else queried whether Jeanson (as quoted by Ham) specifically claimed to have made a genetics prediction HIMSELF (rather than unnamed AiG writers more generally). However to me Ham’s blog along with the quoted words of Jeanson implied that one of those who had made a successful prediction was Jeanson himself. He did not refer to “my colleagues” he said “we” which implied to me that he was including HIMSELF in the claim. Jeanson is research biologist with a PhD in cell and developmental biology. He made a particular claim (which cannot be evaluated solely from the wording quoted) – which in the context to Ham’s claims I took to mean that the result confirmed what Jeanson had specifically predicted beforehand ‘from’ the Bible – that “there are far too few genetic differences among species on this planet for them to have been around millions of years”. (Was he there?)

  18. If I recall correctly, Kurt Wise is an “appearance of age” creationist. I don’t think Hamster is. Wise thus believes in a deceptive deity.

    Seth Andrews recently posted a youtube video about Hamster’s ark thing (“Noah’s Lark: The Ark Encounter”) – it’s worth a listen. There’s an short, insightful story about Hamster and an airline seat. It is consistent with what we already know – Hamster is a con man only interested in $ and ruining the minds of kids.

  19. Christine Janis

    I just read about one of the “predictions” at the AiG site: it was about the notion that Neanderthals and humans ought to be more closely related than the scientists once thought. This is because Neanderthals appeared to be fully human as they made music/buried their dead, or whatever. So their “successful prediction” was that Neanderthals were really human.

    Of course, had the new scientific data shown otherwise (i.e., humans *less* related to Neanderthals than we had thought), they’d have claimed that their predictions were also correct, because only the descendants of Adam and Eve were made in God’s image, and the genetic similarity between humans and Neanderthals had no meaning.

    I’m wondering if the said “genetic differences among species” being much less than 50 million years (or whatever) is because, what they’re doing is looking at how much variation there is *within* a given species. So, of course, all members of a species are going to have a projected divergence data of, at best, a couple of million years, not 50 million and certainly not 3.5 billion. Is Ham claiming that “evolutionists” think that all species had their origin at the dawn of life on earth? Surely that’s the creationist trope.

  20. Now have brought myself to actually read this AIG crap. And what bugs me: what predictions has Ol’ Hambo’s YEC actionally made? The crappy article provides exactly one concrete example – and it’s lousy.

    “For example, starting with the Bible, we know there’s only one race.”
    Except that other christians, starting with the very same Bible, have maintained that there are three or four races.
    Plus race is so ill-defined that this actually isn’t a prediction at all.

  21. I suggest that one prediction that was made solely on the basis of the Bible is that the universe had a beginning in time. That was a conflict which goes back to the Middle Ages, for Aristotle taught that the universe was eternal.
    It is rather amusing that today’s fundamentalists distance themselves from the scientific evidence for the finite age of the universe.

  22. AiG: “There are two primary models of Earth’s history — evolution over millions of years and a young universe specially created by God.”

    Apologies if it has been covered in all those comments, but even many self-described creationists will say that’s pure nonsense. And AiG knows it is. They know that there are more “primary models” that claim a billions of years old universe specially created by God. Technically “evolution over millions of years” is consistent with that as stated, as are several falsified old-earth models that reject evolution, and usually (but not always) also common descent.

    Really, the only proper way to respond to any YEC claim is “Go tell that to an OEC, and get back to us when you all agree on ‘what happened when.”

  23. It appears (see my earlier comment) that the ‘successful prediction’ that Jeanson was boasting about was the one he presented in that article on the ICR website (before he moved to AiG). Which may explain why that pathetic Ham blog post did not reference it and just contained quotes of Jeanson’s dogmatism. Interestingly Ham or whoever has not so far put the blog post onto Ham’s Facebook page. I know of one creationist who contacted them to query why there was NO clear prediction made in the blog. I suspect they realise that they posted utter stupidity and don’t want to draw too much attention to it by inviting comments on it on Facebook.

  24. Charles Deetz ;)

    @Ashley I went scanning the AIG Facebook feed yesterday in hopes of finding this article linked. It is pathetic and I think the commenters there would have called them on it.

  25. Habilis not sure how people believe such things. Habilis knows evolution true, even thought my IQ not sky high. Habilis hopes more people can know things about truth science shows. Ignoring truth makes big problems.
    *chews manioc*