Creationists need to have their own definition of “science” so they can tell their drooling followers that their bizarre beliefs are scientific. No one plays that game better than Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG). He’s the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.
The first time we discussed ol’ Hambo’s personal definition of “science” was in Creationism and Science. He mis-defined the word generally, and then he made an artificial distinction between what he calls “operation science” and “origin science.” Hambo doesn’t object to the former, but he claims the latter is based on “secular assumptions” instead of “biblical assumptions.” The bible, of course, “is the eyewitness testimony of the Creator.”
There is a distinction between the historical sciences (cosmology, geology, climatology, plate tectonics, anthropology, paleontology, and of course evolution) and the “experimental sciences” that can be done in the lab. We can’t re-create the past, but we can study it scientifically. The historical sciences are based on verifiable observations and they produce theories are testable.
The reason Hambo and other creationists make their artificial distinction between historical and observational science is because the former so clearly contradicts the creation account in Genesis. Nevertheless, the claim that our investigations of the past aren’t scientific and can’t be tested is pure nonsense, readily refuted by The Lessons of Tiktaalik.
We discussed the same thing again in Answers in Genesis Explains Science to Us. Hambo mostly repeated himself, but he also informed us:
[M]iracles are possible within the Christian worldview. Naturalistic scientists simply dismiss the possibility of the supernatural. They do this not for logical reasons, but because miracles are incompatible with their beliefs.
We’ve written about Hambo’s distorted definitions a time or two since then, but it’s always the same old song. The only reason Hambo and other creationists make their artificial distinction between historical and observational science is because the former so clearly contradicts the creation account in Genesis.
Well, ol’ Hambo is doing it again. His new post is titled Exposing the Secularists’ Faulty Belief About Science. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
What is science? Well, there’s a lot of misuse of the word by secularists and the popular media. … Now, secularists often misuse the word science when they use it to refer to their molecules-to-man evolution belief, and then also misapply it to refer to technology, which is operational science (observation and repeatable testing). There’s a big difference between knowledge about the past (origins beliefs) and knowledge for building technology! You can’t observe, test, or repeat the past, so historical (or origins) science isn’t the same thing as observational science that can be directly observed, tested, and repeated in the present.
Nothing new there. Then he says:
The media also misuse the word science to claim that creationists are against science. We aren’t against science — AiG loves science, and we have staff with PhDs in various science fields!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve seen the writings of Hambo’s creation scientists. After that he tells us:
What the media really mean is that they accept secular beliefs — which they’ve labeled science — and reject creation beliefs. Since we don’t agree with their secular beliefs, they believe we must be against science. But we aren’t against science. We’re against an evolutionary, naturalistic interpretation of the evidence that contradicts God’s Word.
Very reasonable. He continues:
Secularists need to admit their faulty beliefs. [Hee hee!] But they don’t want to acknowledge they have any beliefs! They believe life somehow arose by natural processes, and they also believe in an unobservable process of molecules-to-man evolution. Secularists have a religion. They have beliefs about how the universe and life arose, and these beliefs affect how they interpret evidence in the present.
Hambo, of course, isn’t plagued by foolish beliefs about how the universe and life began. He has science on his side! And now we come to the end:
Creationists are more than willing to distinguish between beliefs about origins and observable science that builds our technology. But secularists refuse to admit what are obviously beliefs — they just keep claiming their beliefs are “science.” They make these claims to attempt to brainwash people into believing that molecules-to-man evolution can be proven — which it is most definitely can’t!
You’re the irrational fanatic with religious beliefs, dear reader. Ol’ Hambo is a scientist, all the way.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.