AIG Asks: Why Aren’t You a Creationist?

The deep thinkers at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia — are asking a very important qustion: Why Aren’t People Convinced by Facts?

It was written by Avery Foley. AIG says she holds a masters of arts in theological studies from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, which certainly qualifies her to discuss this subject.

Avery begins by referring to this article in Scientific American: How To Convince Someone When Facts Fail: Why Worldview Threats Undermine Evidence, written by Michael Shermer. She quotes Shermer:

Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.

[…]

Creationists, for example, dispute the evidence for evolution in fossils and DNA because they are concerned about secular forces encroaching on religious faith.

Then Avery cleverly says, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Well, let’s turn this thinking around on him. What about those who hold to evolutionary ideas? Do evolutionists listen to facts when they are presented by creationists? Or do they “double down on their beliefs” and “dispute the evidence?” Of course they dispute the evidence because it goes against their deeply held worldview.

Great question! Do you, dear reader, disregard the facts and evidence presented by creationists? After that she tells us:

Shermer argues that facts fail to convince people because of their deeply held beliefs. But he doesn’t apply this same thinking to himself. He doesn’t acknowledge that his interpretation of the facts could be wrong, but just assumes the other group is obstinate and wrong.

Aha — Shermer is a fool! He merely assumes the creationists are wrong. Avery continues:

In reality it is not about the facts. When it comes to creation vs. evolution, the age of the earth, or climate change, the issue is not the facts because these facts (just the observable evidence) don’t speak for themselves. They must be interpreted. Because we were not there at the beginning of the universe, we must interpret the evidence from the past to determine what happened. And we interpret the evidence through our worldview.

She’s right, dear reader. Were you there? Let’s read on:

Evolutionists start with man’s ideas about the past and assume everything is the result of natural processes over time (even though they cannot directly observe, test, or repeat such an idea). Biblical creationists start with God’s Word, the eyewitness account of creation, and use the history provided in God’s Word as a framework for interpreting the past.

Are you feeling a bit less secure, dear reader? Avery isn’t done with you. Here’s another excerpt:

Creationists don’t ignore facts. We interpret them in light of the history from God’s Word. Because we have a different starting point, we come to conclusions different from those of evolutionists looking at the same evidence. And, because God’s Word is true, the evidence we see in the world confirms God’s Word.

Perfectly reasonable! Here’s more:

We’re often asked why more people, especially scientists, aren’t creationists since the evidence confirming a young earth and creation, as described in Genesis, is overwhelming. The Bible even tells us that creation itself testifies to the Creator (Psalm 19) so that “[we] are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). So why don’t more people believe the Bible and creation?

Another good question! Avery’s answer is provided in several bible quotes, including: “Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” (Romans 1:18–23).

This is our last excerpt:

One thing Shermer doesn’t acknowledge is that, at its core, this is a spiritual problem. The facts aren’t the problem at all. The real issue is that man is at enmity with God and suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. That’s why, ultimately, facts don’t convince anyone, though those who do seek the Lord and truth will be rewarded [scripture reference].

The problem is you, dear reader. The only reason you’re not a creationist is because you’re evil.

Copyright © 2017. 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 Asks: Why Aren’t You a Creationist?

  1. Michael Fugate

    Science has never been defined as “being consistent with Ken Ham’s interpretation of the Bible” or any interpretation of the Bible or any other holy book or any book for that matter. Avery needs to read up on science first, then get back to us – I am sure it wasn’t taught at Liberty U.

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    Its crap like this that makes a discussion of very real ‘fake news’ into a catchphrase to describe news that one thinks is in error. You just can’t even win the argument about what facts are, let alone what the content of any facts are. Is there a rational place I can go, please?

  3. I suggest that they ask those advocates of “Intelligent Design” who insist that ID is not creationism.

  4. “In reality it is not about the facts.” I know, I’m removing this from context. I have to because this is one stupid sentence. Reality is ALWAYS about the facts, even if you say, “In reality…” What an idiot.

  5. In reality it is not about the facts. When it comes to creation vs. evolution, the age of the earth, or climate change, the issue is not the facts because these facts (just the observable evidence) don’t speak for themselves. They must be interpreted. Because we were not there at the beginning of the universe, we must interpret the evidence from the past to determine what happened. And we interpret the evidence through our worldview.

    Or to put it another way, Darwinian ideas cannot be accepted because human beings weren’t there to observe the whole history of the universe, but creationist views can be accepted even without such direct observation because the Bible says God was there and religious believers say the Bible is God’s unerring Word.

    No double standard here, folks, now is there?

    At least Ms. Avery is honest enough to admit that for her side “the facts are not the issue.”

  6. If what Ms. Avery says is true, why is it that so many of her fellow Christians believe climate change is real and that the facts support evolution? Are they not Christians? They read the same bible that Ms. Avery does and conclude that the ancient tales are, well, ancient tales.

    As to facts, “God exists” is not one. Facts are supported by evidence, and ancient myths do not constitute evidence. If they did, then the gods of Olympus would be real.

  7. Curmie, I saw this just a little while ago. According to Pharyngula, AIG says the Roman gladiators fought dinosaurs in the arena.

  8. @Eric Lipps
    Yet the creationists feel free to imagine things about the past which are not mentioned in the Bible.
    Baramanology, all of it, is pure imagination.

  9. David Williams

    Creationists have creationist twaddle brains, so creationist twaddle makes sense to them. To people with rational, scientific thinking brains, creationist twaddle is amusing.

  10. “the evidence confirming a young earth and creation, as described in Genesis, is overwhelming.”

    That is so blatantly a flat lie that it astonishes me that even someone from Ham’s organisation can bring themselves to utter it in public. What on earth can she think qualifies as evidence? The answer appears to be the following quotes from the Bible: there’s your evidence, scoffer!

    The only possible rational response is to back away slowly, smiling gently, nodding, while watching very carefully for the first signs of assault.

    You know, the ancient Celts, so Tacitus tells us, used to paint themselves blue, spike their hair up with lime, and go naked into battle screaming and gibbering. Something of the sort is happening here, I think.

  11. Ms. Foley asserts that creationists use an “…eyewitness account of creation…” Eyewitness accounts are so notoriously mistaken that if I am ever on a jury I will ignore any eyewitness accounts and pay attention to physical evidence. And the argument reminds me of Mark Twain’s comment: if it’s a miracle, any sort of evidence will do, if it’s a fact, proof is necessary. I doubt Ms. Foley realizes there’s as much proof for the existence of her favorite sky fairy as there is for Ganesha, my personal favorite.

  12. Derek Freyberg

    Ed:
    I think the people you are talking about are not Christians as Hambo would define them. He’s pretty clear about this – if Genesis isn’t literally true, what can you trust about Jesus, so we (the Hambo folks) believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and “facts” (like, the earth is older than 6400 years) are fake news. It’s stupid, but it does have the virtue of internally consistent stupidity.

  13. “Do evolutionists listen to facts when they are presented by creationists?”

    Not when it is very easy to demonstrate that Creationists are presenting a very small, carefully cherry-picked, and taken-out-of-context, set of “facts”.

    A set of “facts” that is generally so small that it can fit within a single website (Talk.Origin Archive’s Creationist Claims database).

  14. Another example of Creationism as cargo cult science. They take a carefully hand-picked and misconstrued (or outright false) set of “facts”, and add an interpretation that is carefully molded to arrive at a certain ideological conclusion. They think that’s science.

    Real science is about data, theories, predictions, falsification, discussion, repeatability, peer review, etc. The goal is not to build an ideological worldview as the Creationists assume it must be, since that is their goal.

  15. Derek Freyberg: You have accurately identified one of Ham’s hobbyhorses, a purblind refusal to understand original sin as anything other than disobedience in one specific instance. The story cannot possibly stand for all the shortcomings, selfishness, wrongdoing of mankind, all mankind, all time, despite the fact that we know better. No, no. If Adam and Eve did not literally eat a magical fruit, then there was no original sin for Jesus to expiate. Jesus becomes redundant. Thus Ham.

    I’ve always said that Biblical literalism is not only ridiculous in the face of the evidence, but is also ridiculous theologically. I know many readers here will be impatient with even referring to a theological objection to Ham’s nonsense, but it is still the case that Ham is as illiterate theologically as he is scientifically.

  16. …evidence confirming a young earth and creation, as described in Genesis, is overwhelming.

    Of course it is, because you just postulated that all that all evidence must be interpreted in light of the Bible. This argument cycles faster than a particle in a cyclotron.

  17. @Drake
    Interpreted in the light of their particular understanding of the Bible.

  18. Why am I not a creationist?? I have not lost my intelligent and gone insane!

  19. Ed writes …

    If what Ms. Avery says is true, why is it that so many of her fellow Christians believe climate change is real and that the facts support evolution? Are they not Christians?

    No they are not Christians, according to Ken Ham. This is entirely at odds with the entire history of Christianity; the meaning of Genesis 1:1 has always been argued over, but a literal interpretation has never been a requirement.

    I’m reading a good book, The Heresy of Ham by Joel Edmund Anderson. Check it out. He also blogs at http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/?p=2172

  20. “Evolutionists …. assume everything is the result of natural processes over time.”
    Exactly. And since that assumption became en vogue in science some more than 200 years ago the results have been spectacular.

    “Creationists don’t ignore facts. We interpret them in light of the history from God’s Word.”
    As all apologists have done for at least 2000 years. Somehow the results of this were zilch.

    “The facts aren’t the problem at all.”
    No. If necessary creacrappers make them up at will. That AIG display with a T-Rex in an arena is a fact that excellently confirms this hypothesis.

  21. @mnbo
    make them [facts] up
    Either make them up, or deny them. Including what is, or is not, in the Bible
    But it is not enough to choose the facts.
    The logic also must be bent. Circular reasoning is the norm, and a healthy dose of other fallacies. And there is self-contradiction.
    And as if all of that were not enough, they cannot produce an alternative theory. What happens in the world of life so that there is this variety? (“That is just the ineffable way that the omnipotent, omniscient, God chooses.”)

  22. The Bushongo tribe of Africa believed that when the gods vomited they actually created the earth, the skies and humans. Yep, you heard right we all came from projectile vomit. Hey, it’s as realistic a creationist story as any other if you decide to go the fact free, or dare I say, alternative fact route.

  23. Very good eyewitness testimony, Erik. The evidence for this myth is overwhelming, and we interpret all ‘objective science’ with the starting point of the Bushongos’ word.

  24. “Creationists don’t ignore facts. We interpret them in light of the history from God’s Word. Because we have a different starting point, we come to conclusions different from those of evolutionists looking at the same evidence. And, because God’s Word is true, the evidence we see in the world confirms God’s Word.”

    VERY convincing.

  25. And they are the only people in the history of Bible-reading who truly understand what the Bible is saying.