AIG’s Best Reasons To Be a Creationist

This is very instructive. At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia — the creation scientists give us their strongest arguments in 7 Wonderful Reasons Every Christian Should Be a Biblical Creationist. The author is Joel Leineweber, about whom we know nothing. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

There are many Christians who think that the issue of how God created the world doesn’t really matter, that this type of intellectual bickering doesn’t affect how we live our Christian lives. There may be intellectual arguments that have little effect on our lives, but creation is not one of them. Here are seven wonderfully practical benefits of being a biblical creationist. Biblical creationists, in particular, can take comfort and joy in these things. And anyone who isn’t or doesn’t think that creation really matters should take the time to seriously consider the seven reasons below.

We’ll give you all of Joel’s arguments, but as you consider each item, we ask you to think about whether anything may be missing from the list. Okay, here we go:

1. God is always good. God used the word good seven times in Genesis 1 to describe His creation. … He is always good. In fact, God is the very definition of good [scripture reference].

We assume that was the best reason of all. Now for the others:

2. God always keeps His promises. In Genesis 6:5–7 God said that He was so grieved by the wickedness of man that He would destroy all men, beasts, creeping things, and birds from the face of the earth. Go read the account yourself. … If God didn’t keep all of His promises, all other promises would be brought into question. But if God meant what He said, then we can put our trust in Him, because God always keeps His promises [scripture reference].

Joel is just getting warmed up. Here’s more:

3. Strong faith is rooted in God’s Word. If we place too much faith in man’s word, then we will be “tossed about by every wind of doctrine” [scripture reference]. Every scientific report that doesn’t seem to fit with the Bible will make us question whether God meant what He said in His Word. … God shouldn’t be blamed for the bad things that happen in this world. He created the world very good, but man’s sin brought death, disease, bloodshed, and sorrow into it [scripture reference].

Moving along:

4. Worship is based on creation. When we value God’s written Word as our highest authority, we also have a high view of God. Anything we can do to have a higher view of God will breathe life into our worship.

Joel’s list continues:

5. Jesus is trustworthy. Whenever Jesus talks about history in the Scriptures, it’s clear that He knew it was real history. … God, the Creator, made man unique and in God’s image. If God used sickness and death to drive the evolution of life, why would Christ heal the sick and raise the dead when He came to earth? If evolution is God’s tool for biological progress, then sickness and death are in some sense good things. But Jesus didn’t seem to have that mindset.

Let’s read on:

6. Jesus conquered death. Jesus lived a sinless life, died physically, and rose from the dead physically. But if sin only brought spiritual death and not physical death, then why did Christ have to die physically? Christ’s physical death and resurrection demands a young earth where a literal Adam and Eve sinned against God and brought death into the world.

This is the final reason:

7. Our hope is sure. The Apostle Paul says in Romans 8 that “the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs.” If God called millions of years of death, disease, and bloodshed “very good,” then why would the new heavens and new earth be free of death, disease, and bloodshed? But if we take Genesis plainly, we can also have a sure hope that when Christ returns He will “wipe away every tear” and create a new heaven and new earth [scripture reference] that are indeed very good!

So there you have it, dear reader — the very best arguments for creationism from ol’ Hambo’s creation scientists. Now then, as a bit of an intellectual challenge, see if you can identify anything that might be missing from Joel’s list.

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

28 responses to “AIG’s Best Reasons To Be a Creationist

  1. 8. Humans are special. We aren’t animals.

    I am sure many creationists take comfort in this.

  2. #1 (as well as others) can be taken as an excellent example of the fallacy of
    “Non Sequitur”. “Evolution is false” has no connection with “God is good”. One could as well argue from that premise that the Earth is unmoving:
    Psalm 96:10: Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
    One might think that this argument is not meant to convince anyone as much to damn anyone who disagrees with a particular sect.

  3. Joel Leineweber has a BS in graphic design from Bob Jones University.

    He says: “There may be intellectual arguments that have little effect on our lives…”

    Yes, we know that intellectual arguments have little effect on creationists. That’s why there are creationists.

  4. A perfect explanation for the credulous believer but it doesn’t work so well for anyone who thinks. There is just too much idiocy here to bother to debunk it.

  5. intellectual arguments that have little effect on our lives.
    The mathematician GH Hardy once told us that number theory was useless.
    And there was the intellectual who worked on diarrhea of locusts.
    Going back a little earlier, why would anyone be bothered with getting the position of Mars exact to a fraction of a degree?

  6. michaelfugate

    The biggest problem is Joel mentioning modern creationism and intellectual in the same sentence.

  7. 9. Jesus ain’t no kin to no monkey

  8. michaelfugate

    10. The earth is square and stationary.

  9. 11. no need to torture my brain by trying to learn something new.

  10. 12. Evolution and book learning (as opposed to Book learning) are for elitists and communists.

  11. “God is always good.” Wrong. Your deity’s a genocidal maniac. If it weren’t, the ark encounter would have no reason to exist.

  12. @azportsider
    I do not mean this as a criticism, but just a speculation about creationist reaction.
    A creationist might be pleased, for this “proves” that no “true Christian” can “believe” in evolution. N

  13. Most Christians who have rejected all or most of YEC claims (after assessing their validity) would still agree with most of the Reasons given.

  14. *hand up*
    Yeah, Ashley, we do. We agree with the statements, but the explanations are just bizarre.

  15. The always good God always keeps his promises. If God says he will commit genocide, the by god he does it. (pun intended)

    This is a reason to be a creationist?

  16. If your ahole gawd exists then he is an evil gawd! I give you his word as proof!!

  17. I have heard it argued that some national legends exaggerate the violence done by their national heroes, if not make the stories out of whole cloth. This may be a way of legitimizing their title to the land – they took it, fair and square, by war, with the blessing of their gods, rather than some mamby-pamby peaceful means.
    Of course, when they have the stories as the word of their gods, then to deny the truth of the stories is to call their gods unreliable tellers of tales. (Or to doubt that the stories are the word of their gods, but that is obviously out of the question.)
    Myself, I don’t understand how killing and taking by force are more acceptable for a god than falsehood.

  18. Items that might be missing from Joel’s list
    A. The scientific method
    B. Logic
    C. Several hundred years worth of scientific discoveries
    D. Honesty
    E.Any indication whatsoever that Joel is capable of
    learning
    F. Darwin
    G. Hutton
    H. Deep time
    I. Modern geology
    J. Paleontology
    K. Physics
    L. Astronomy
    M. Biology
    N. Plate tectonics
    O.Missing PreCambrian bunny rabbits
    P. NCSE
    Q.Curmudgeonite
    R. Megalonyx
    S. Seismic stratigraphy
    T. Galileo
    U.Australopithecus
    v. dicbill
    W. ed
    X. Westiies’ ulcers
    Y. Reality
    Z. One of the worlds great religions. Christianity;What a stupid waste ignoring the positives of forgiveness, love,and courage of the Bible (yes that message is in there if you ignore all the guilt trip garbage)replaced by creation
    “science ” intellectual cowardice, obstinate stupidity and a total misrepresentation of the message of forgiveness contained in the Bible. Literalism equals stupidity.
    There, fixed it
    willful ignorance,

    Y.
    Z.

  19. Actually anonymous is my call sign off the cell phone.
    Y.

  20. Oops “docile”.
    I shall not be living that one down anytime soon.

  21. Sigh. Joel, let us reason together: (Note, please, that everything below is written in Joel’s terms. I don’t believe any of this myself. I’m just demonstrating that Joel’s notions are self-contradictory.)

    1) “God is always good”.

    If the word “good” has any meaning at all, we have to know, we humans, what it means. But scripture tells us, over and over, that we do not know and cannot know God’s mind. Therefore, we simply do not know what God means when he uses the word. For example, He says that the light was “good”. But light is simply light; it is neither good nor evil – to us. Also, we know that God’s goodness includes His justice, but that His justice involves many acts that we would now consider evil, indeed monstrous. Genocide, for instance, against the Egyptians, the Amelekites, the Canaanites, and all humans in the Flood. From this, and many other examples, it is plain that we simply do not know what God means by “good” in His terms, for Himself. We know that He requires mercy, charity, kindness, gentleness, and generosity of us, and the best attempts we can make at justice and virtue, always admitting our inveterate sinfulness, but what constitutes God’s goodness is forever beyond our reach.

    It is therefore idle and pointless to call creation “good”. So it may be, to God; but that is no sort of indicator for us. If God can call it good to drown every human being bar eight – men, women, children, infants, babes in arms, the unborn and all animals to boot – then we might as well call the Guinea worm and the cholera bacillus “good”. Why not? It is plain that we have no yardstick at all for what is “good” for God.

    2) “God always keeps his promises.” I suppose this might be true – although he can be argued out of them, according to Genesis 18: 20-53. But many of His promises are rather like that one: to destroy things and kill people. But let’s cut to the chase: He also promises Hell.

    So this property of God is not as it would appear at first sight. He keeps His promises, you say. Is keeping promises a “good” thing, in human terms, when what He promises is eternal agony, endless pain, infinite suffering?

    3) “Strong faith is rooted in God’s word.” So you say. For me, brought up Christian, I never questioned – until I read the Bible, which is what I assume you mean by “God’s word”. As soon as I read that – the whole thing, not snippets, not excepts – my faith promptly evaporated. Since then, I have discovered an important fact about people who believe this idea – almost never have they actually read what they call “God’s word” apart from selected passages, and almost always they misrepresent what it actually says. That is, their “strong faith” is not rooted in what they think is God’s word at all, although they don’t usually realise that, and never admit it. The strongest faith I have found – and I actually admire it, in a left-handed sort of way – I find in people who have faith in the goodness of God despite the Bible, and that is the absolute antithesis of what you say.

    4) “Worship is based on creation”. For you, perhaps. Why do you think it is so for all worshipers? You want people to have “a higher value” for worship, you say. You don’t think that worship because God did some amazing but unknowable magic tricks six thousand years ago is just a bit, well, trivial? What about worship out of wonder and joy at the scale, depth and complexity of the Universe? You get very little sense of that from Genesis. What about approaching the unknown from the known, rather than worshiping what we can’t know? What about wanting to know, rather than consigning it to miracle and leaving it at that? Surely those are “higher values”? And anyway, who are you, Joel, to be instructing other worshipers what they must base their worship on?

    5) “Jesus is trustworthy”. So He is. But we have here a perfect example of what I said, above. Here, you’re putting words in his mouth – words that He never spoke, or at least is not recorded as speaking. Jesus indeed didn’t seem to think that sickness and death were good things. How strange, then, that God’s curse entailed them on us because one specific man and woman disobeyed, long ago. Me, I don’t think Jesus thought that at all. I think he thought that we all disobey, all the time. Oddly enough, that is also the position of the Christian Church generally.

    6) “Jesus conquered death. Jesus lived a sinless life, died physically, and rose from the dead physically. But if sin only brought spiritual death and not physical death, then why did Christ have to die physically?”

    Why death at all? Why does God demand it? He demands it still. Christ died, but so do we all. We don’t know why. But the rest: “Christ’s physical death and resurrection demands a young earth…” simply doesn’t follow. If death is caused by “sinning against God”, then as we all sin, so we all die, and the sin of Adam is irrelevant to that. And so is a young earth, and a literal Adam and Eve.

    7) “Our hope is sure”. No doubt you are sure. I can hope, too, but I know hope is not sure. If it were, it wouldn’t be hope, it would be knowledge. By admitting that what you have is hope, you have admitted that you know no more than I. And I don’t know.

  22. Gack. Notice that not one of the “seven wonderfully practical benefits” of being a nutjob fundamentalist, er, that is, creationist has anything to do with tangible evidence as to whether evolution is or isn’t true. All are matters of pure faith, buttressed only by Bible quotes and puerile reasoning.

  23. @Eric Lipps
    Indeed. They are telling us that they have a “pragmatic” approach to what they believe.
    But I think that the pragmatic philosophers would find their approach naive.

  24. Sorry Curmie. I think the creationists have finally won me over. Such wonderful, irrefutable arguments. Going over to the light side.

    Not really.

  25. @Dave Luckett: As usual, a superb, insightful essay. One phrase in particular made me think —
    “Why death at all? … We don’t know why.”

    Perhaps we do know why. Without death, evolution would be impossible. Without death, we would have survival of all, not just the fittest. There would be no means of selecting those individual organisms that are better adapted to a changing environment.

    We should think of death as the very affirmation of evolution.

  26. @retiredsciguy
    I’m not convinced.
    Aren’t there forms of life which are essentially immortal?
    The important part of selection is differential reproduction, not survival. The population could have a change in inheritable traits even though there is no death, but an effect of the changes in later generation while the older generation stays unchanged.
    Couldn’t there be a form of evolution in which the individual has a change in the genome over time?

  27. @ retiredsciguy:

    Thank you. The idiotic sameness of creationists has always galled me, and when galled, I write screeds. The piece I was answering is such a perfect example of it. Blind assertion, textual and doctrinal ignorance, blatant misrepresentation, non-sequitur, authoritarian directive, it’s all there. As TomS remarks, this is what counts as thought in creationist la-la land, and it’s puerile. A decent academic theologian would probably have given my piece a four out of ten in an undergraduate class, but might have been prepared to read it, if only to point out its errors. But Joel’s effusion, published on a creationist site, and considered authoritative in the strange little world creationists inhabit… well, perhaps the scholarly reaction might be contempt or hilarity or pity, according to personality, and it would happen as soon as it was opened.

    See, I know Joel’s tribe must be wrong about the science, even though I don’t understand a lot of the science. How do I know that? Because I know they’re wrong about the Bible and Christian belief, and that’s supposed to be what informs them, the place where they tell everyone that they’re coming from. If they get that wrong – and they do, hopelessly, desperately, mind-bogglingly wrong – what sort of stramash must they make of the science?

  28. @TomS: Well, there is the matter of competition for resources. If all the trees in a forest survived for 10,000 or more years, there would be no room or resources available for saplings. All well and good for the existing trees, but not so good for tree life overall if there is a climate change that kills them all. There would be no younger trees with somewhat different genetics to do that differential reproduction you mention.

    I would think the same principle would apply to the animal kingdom as well, but in this matter I’m merely philosophizing off the top of my head (and probably over my head, as well), rather than citing any references. I’d bet it’s been thought of plenty already, though.