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.