AIG: Creationism Is Really Reasonable

This is a strange one from the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. The title is Surprising Similarities Between Creation & Evolution.

It was written by John UpChurch, described at the end as: “the content manager [whatever that is] at Pinelake Church in Jackson, Mississippi, and is a contributor to the Answers in Genesis website. He graduated summa cum laude from the University of Tennessee with a BA in English.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

I’m a certified creationist — a Bible-loving, six-day-believing, global-Flood-teaching creationist. I believe man was uniquely created in God’s image. All that stuff in the first 11 chapters of Genesis? Yep, I think of it as real, grade A history. Not only that, but I put my science where my faith is. Geology, biology, astronomy — they all line up with those lines of Hebrew.

Not surprising. Hambo wouldn’t have anyone else’s essays at his website. Then John says:

Now, all that might not surprise you. Creation and believing the Bible go hand in hand after all. But get this. When I’m talking or listening to an evolutionist — even an atheist one — I can actually nod my head in agreement in many areas. … A creationist and an evolutionist agree on science? How could someone who believes that God made everything in six 24-hour days agree with someone who thinks that natural processes produced all we see over billions of years?

Hey — this should be fun! John tells us:

Actually, it’s not as surprising as you might think. When we look at the universe around us, there are a lot of amazing things to see and study. No matter what our starting point (God’s Word or human reasoning apart from God), the stuff we examine doesn’t change. Fossils are fossils, carbon atoms are carbon atoms, and stars are stars. Our belief about the age of the earth doesn’t change the raw facts.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He continues:

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. “Creationists can’t do real science because they start from the Bible and the Bible can’t change. Real science means that we have to follow the evidence where it leads. Science doesn’t rule out answers before we start.” Um — no. That’s really not the case at all.

It is true that — as any Christian should — we believe the Bible is God’s perfect Word. It records the true history of the universe as revealed to us by the one who saw everything happen. (It helps that He’s the one who did the creating.) He can’t lie, He has perfect understanding, and He has plenty of power to keep His Word (the Bible) safe and sound until it gets to us. So, that makes us confident we’ve got the real scoop on how we came to be. But there’s something you won’t find in the Bible: every detail about how the universe works.

Are you following this? We’re a bit confused, but perhaps John will clear things up. He gives us an example:

Evolutionists love the great apes. They point to them as our “closest living ancestor” because of all their similarities with us. We like them too, and we agree to a part of their description. The great apes are “close” in the sense that they do share quite a few traits with good ol’ Homo sapiens. They have hands with five fingers, including an opposable thumb. Their basic body layout comes pretty close to ours. Their brains have the capacity to learn simple communication skills through sign language or other nonverbal methods. Even their DNA shares many parallels to the DNA in our cells. So, yes, the similarities are interesting — but so are the differences.

Okay, here it comes:

Why are the apes so similar to us? That’s a great question. Do you remember how I said we don’t have all the answers? Well, here’s a prime example. We have some ideas, but we don’t really know for certain all His purposes for the similarities. (All creatures are similar to us at some level, which makes it easier for us to live with them and oversee them as God’s stewards.) Perhaps they remind us that physical qualities aren’t what make us truly unique and most like the Creator. Whatever the case, apes do have similarities to humans. Anyone can see that. But the differences — ah, the differences — that’s what makes us able to praise our wise God with beautiful songs, while gorillas only grunt.

Having made it clear that he ain’t no kin to no monkey, John moves on to another issue:

The fossil record consists of billions of remains from animals and plants that have turned to stone. They’re piled up all over the world in layer upon layer of mud, sand, and other sediments hardened to rock. What’s really interesting here is that there’s a general order to the fossils. At the bottom, you’ll find mostly single-celled microorganisms, then sea creatures in abundance, such as sponges, clams, and squids. Move up, and you’ll find amphibians, then dinosaurs, and finally birds and large mammals. (It’s a wee bit more complicated than that, but let’s just keep it simple.)

You could take a look at that stack of fossils and assume that those layers mean billions of years of creatures evolving from sea to land. But the fossil picture can take on a completely different look if you think of it another way — through the lens of Noah’s trip on the Ark.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:

Do you remember how I said that creationists and evolutionists agree on the raw facts, but not what those facts mean? Well, here’s one area where that comes into play — natural selection. Wasn’t that Darwin’s magnum opus? If we agree to natural selection, don’t we have to agree to everything else he said, too? Not even close. You see, there are facts, and then there are interpretations of those facts. The interpretation part is where things can get sticky. When we study nature, evolutionists and creationists both agree that animals change over time. For example, some birds have thick beaks that make it easier for them to crack tough seeds. If soft seeds become scarce and hard seeds are coming out their ears (figuratively speaking), then birds with thicker beaks will have an easier time finding breakfast. So, they’re more likely to survive and have chicks.

John spends a few paragraphs doing the micro-macro mambo. We’ll skip that, because we’ve already debunked it in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Let’s see another excerpt from John’s essay:

Here’s the reason for concern. Evolutionists rely on a human-centered approach. They have no higher authority, no higher source of information, than the gray matter in their heads. They are unwilling to check their work against an answer key because they don’t believe there is one.

Foolish evolutionists! And now we come to the end:

There is something much better. You see, God loved us enough to tell us exactly what He did and when He did it, at least in the most important matters of our origin, purpose, and destiny. He wanted us to know Him and to know that He would one day enter into His creation to save us from our sin [scripture reference]. If He’s an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-everything God who wants us to know Him, wouldn’t we be much better off trusting His revelation of history and the universe and everything? Yeah, that’s why I’ll take His explanation every time.

So there you are, dear reader. Creationists are just as reasonable as you are, but they have something going for them that you lack — a book which contains The Truth.

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

16 responses to “AIG: Creationism Is Really Reasonable

  1. Wow, this guy believes that “Creation and believing the Bible go hand in hand after all.” He must be a man of great faith! I wonder if he knows his idea of “creation” comes from his bible?

  2. Mark Germano

    Hey, SC: Unless I’m missing something, the organization in the title doesn’t match the one in the post.

  3. Michael Fugate

    But there’s something you won’t find in the Bible: every detail about how the universe works.

    You see, God loved us enough to tell us exactly what He did and when He did it, at least in the most important matters of our origin, purpose, and destiny.

    Anyone see a contradiction here?

  4. Thanks, Mark Germano. That was quite a blunder!

  5. John says: “If He’s an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-everything God who wants us to know Him, wouldn’t we be much better off trusting His revelation of history and the universe and everything?” And he’s right. If (highlighted above) the sky fairy were demonstrated to have those qualities, we’d all agree. However, there’s no evidence there is such a sky fairy. Therefore, we can safely ignore what John says about him/her/it.

  6. Richard Bond

    They are unwilling to check their work against an answer key because they don’t believe there is one.

    I have this strange notion that scientists check their hypotheses against evidence. How many more times need we make this point?

  7. Richard Bond

    What happened there? I thought that I had closed the “blockquote” properly.

    [*Voice from above*] Not even close! But all is well.

  8. AIG’s cover page featuring Upchurch’s article features a chimpanzee photograph. What better way to ensure the faithful don’t delve into science than scaring them with a chimp picture. Many are horrified to think there is a relationship between human ancestry and earlier primates.

  9. “Evolutionists rely on a human-centered approach. They have no higher authority, no higher source of information, than the gray matter in their heads.”
    There is indeed a long tradition of supposing that people could deduce facts about the real world from abstract principles derived from armchair contemplation. Unfortunately, this got us exactly nowhere useful. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, arises from the conflicting view that knowledge of the real world can only be be derived by checking our ideas against observations of the real world. This, rather than less-informed speculations by ancient authors, has given us the enormous comforts of our much-extended lifespans.

  10. Ross Cameron

    ‘He graduated summa cum laude from the University of Tennessee with a BA in English’. Obviously, the U of T doesn`t teach critical thinking. Or maybe he skipped the classes.

  11. What I can’t understand is how it is that someone who believes that God created all of nature doesn’t accept natural processes being responsible for the Tree of Life. By definition, aren’t natural processes a part of “all of nature”? Why can’t they accept the idea that God created evolution?

  12. cnocspeireag

    Ross Cameron, I’m also amazed that someone with a degree in English could write ‘they have hands with five fingers, including an opposable thumb’.

  13. Evolutionists love the great apes. They point to them as our “closest living ancestor” because of all their similarities with us.

    Ancestor? Try “relatives” (plural, please). English major Upchuck, er, Upchurch apparently is as clueless about the area of his supposed expertise as about the repationship between apes and humans.

    Here’s the reason for concern. Evolutionists rely on a human-centered approach. They have no higher authority, no higher source of information, than the gray matter in their heads. They are unwilling to check their work against an answer key because they don’t believe there is one. . . . There is something much better. You see, God loved us enough to tell us exactly what He did and when He did it, at least in the most important matters of our origin, purpose, and destiny. He wanted us to know Him and to know that He would one day enter into His creation to save us from our sin [scripture reference]. If He’s an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-everything God who wants us to know Him, wouldn’t we be much better off trusting His revelation of history and the universe and everything? Yeah, that’s why I’ll take His explanation every time.

    Except, of course, that Genesis wasn’t written by God. According to tradition (itself an unreliable guide), it was written by a self-exiled Egyptian prince (Moses). Of everything in the Bible, only the original stone tablets bearing the Ten Commandments are supposed to have been directly authored by the Supreme Being.

  14. @Eric Lipps
    About the authorship of Genesis, it offers us an example of the flexibility of fundamentalist reasoning.

    The Bible does not tell us about who wrote Genesis or when. The first five books of the Bible are generally considered as a whole, called the Pentateuch. The four books after Genesis tell the story of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt and the basic Laws of Moses. There are references elsewhere to these laws as the “Laws of Moses”, so there is biblical reason to say that these laws were written by Moses, and to say that they were dictated by God to Moses. Therefore, there is reason to say that the entire Pentateuch, including also Genesis, was dictated by God to Moses.

    However, and this is where mere human fallible reasoning is allowed to intrude. The last chapter of the fifth book describes the death and burial of Moses, and subsequent status of Moses. This is taken by most fundamentalists as reason to say that that was not written by Moses. Although, of course, anything is possible for God. God could tell Moses about the future, and Moses could write that last chapter as divine prediction.

    But for some reason, mere human fallibility is sufficient reason to say that the final words of the Pentateuch were written by someone else, usually Joshua, acting as Moses’s secretary. (And he then continued with his writing to produce the next book, Joshua.)

    But there are other passages in the Pentateuch which tell us about things which Moses could not write. They are about things well after the death of Moses or other reasons. Of course, they could just as well have been dictated by God. Indeed, this excuse is allowed by the fundamentalists in these other cases. But modern Biblical scholars have spent much effort on such internal clues as to who wrote what and when. And while there are disagreements on details, all scholars but the fundamentalists agree that there were several authors of the Pentateuch – in particular, there were at least two authors involved with Genesis – writing after the foundation of the Kingdom of Israel, at the earliest when Solomon was king, centuries after Moses.

    (PS. This is written from the perspective of a Christian. Jewish writers have a more detailed reasoning on this. )

    In other words, mere human fallible reasoning is allowed, indeed insisted on, by fundamentalists when it comes to some things about who wrote the Bible. Just like world geography and the Solar System and microbiology and micro-evolution and extinction etc.

  15. Starting with the Bible in order to ‘do’ science means rejecting naturalism (as well as espousing inflexible presuppositionalism). But what if the supernatural doesn’t exist? No wonder young earth creation ‘science’ is so often in error and outdated.

  16. I also have a BA in English. I have always assumed that while you might want to take me seriously when I explain the difference between who and whom, there is no reason for anyone to think I can evaluate scientific evidence.