Creationist Wisdom #697: 45 Years of Study

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Columbus Dispatch of Columbus, Ohio, the capital of and largest city in Ohio. Their headline is Creation science gains converts, and the newspaper has a comments section.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Jim. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

I thank The Dispatch for printing an even-handed review of the opening of the Ark Encounter in Kentucky (“Two by two,” Religion News Service, Friday). The article accurately reported that this attraction is focused on issues such as creation, evolution, science and the age of the Earth, and that the biblical flood account is historic and the Bible is true in regard to history and science.

We searched the newspaper, but couldn’t find an article with that title. We did find this on the date Jim mentioned: Noah’s Ark, sister exhibit to Creation Museum, opens to throngs in Kentucky, which has a lot of quotes from ol’ Hambo and is mostly favorable to his state-supported Ark Encounter, but late in the article it also mentions:

Scientists with the American Association for the Advancement of Science say the Earth is more than 4 billion years old, that there never was a flood covering the whole Earth and that the variety of species today could not have descended from the animals on the ark.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter if that’s the article Jim is referring to. Let’s read on from his letter:

I have been studying this issue from all sides for 45 years, and Answers in Genesis, the creationist ministry that built the exhibit, is right. This will sound strange to many ears.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! After 45 years of study, Jim is convinced that Hambo is right! He continues:

The media do not tell us that there are thousands of scientists, fully credentialed with post-graduate degrees from accredited universities, who have become believers in recent creation.

It’s a media conspiracy to cover up The Truth! Jim has obviously been doing most of his “study” at websites like Hambo’s. Here’s more:

Research since the 1960s, and particularly in the past 20 years, in microbiology, geology, archaeology, geneology [sic], cosmology and related sciences has consistently supported the predictions and paradigms of creation science.

It seems that Jim has also been studying the work of creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. His scholarship is commendable!

This is the end of Jim’s brief letter:

I look forward to a time of actual, factual scientific exchange, and the Ark Encounter might help that to happen.

If Jim’s letter has caused you to suffer a flare-up of neuritis and neuralgia, we recommend a heavy dose of Curmudgeonite™.

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

10 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #697: 45 Years of Study

  1. If Jimbo’s been studying something for 45 years and can’t cite even a tiny bit of evidence to support his views, maybe he ought to choose another subject to study.

  2. abeastwood, I suggest you re-read his letter. He mentioned that there are thousands of creation scientists. He stands on the shoulders of giants.

  3. microbiology, geology, archaeology, geneology [sic], cosmology and related sciences

    One wonders about those “related sciences” — “related” like microbiology and cosmology and genealogy are “related”?

    Optics? Fromology, perhaps?

  4. Over the last 45 years … there have been Nobel Prizes in Physics which relate to “deep time” in astrophysics, six times …
    1974 Ryle, Hewish
    1978 Penzias, Wilson
    1983 Chandrasekhar, Fowler
    2002 Davis, Kosiba, Giacconi
    2006 Mather, Smoot
    2011 Perlmutter, Schmidt, Riess

  5. Yeah, TomS ….. but those Nobel Prices in Physics were not the result of actual, factual scientific exchange. The media you read don’t tell you so. You should pay more attention to what Ol’ Jimbo wrote. Maybe after 90 years of studing his creacrap wisdom you have reached the same intellectual height as he.

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    has consistently supported the predictions and paradigms of creation science.
    Good grief, pass the Curmudgeonite.

  7. Lewis Thomason

    Man wasted 45 years of his time on nonsense.

  8. Ken Phelps

    Charles Deetz – Perhaps alliterationology is one of the related sciences.

  9. Eric Lipps

    So “thousands of scientists, fully credentialed with post-graduate degrees from accredited universities” have embraced Hanna-Barbera’s view of prehistory? (“Flintstones, meet the Flintstones, they’re a page right out of Genesis . . . “)

    Why is it that when creationists say things like that, the best they can do to come up with actual names is to offer up those of inmates, ahem, “researchers” belonging to one creationist group or other, typically with degrees from “accredited universities” which just happen to be “Christian” schools which (at least sometimes) require their faculty to sign oaths of fealty to fundamentalist dogma as a condition of employment?

    No, never mind; I know why. So does everyone else here.

  10. Dave Luckett

    I think he’s echoing and transmitting the ICR’s “Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data.”

    Of course this is an elaborate prevarication. This is a take-down http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists, but it’s almost irrelevant – such a degree of analysis inevitably runs into the tl/dr defense.

    The same sources are probably where he imbibed the grotesque lie that “Research since the 1960s, and particularly in the past 20 years, in microbiology, geology, archaeology, geneology [sic], cosmology and related sciences has consistently supported the predictions and paradigms of creation science.”