This is a typical load of nonsense from Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. It’s titled Is There Really a War on Science?, written by Avery Foley.
AIG says she has a masters of arts in theological studies from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, which certainly qualifies her to be one of ol’ Hambo’s creation scientists. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Popular science advocates often throw around the phrase “science deniers” and refer to a supposed epidemic of science denial sweeping America and other Western nations. … Is the collective body of knowledge and the methodology we call “science” really teetering on the precipice of extinction or, worse, about to be pushed off?
Science, in its most basic definition, means “knowledge.” Science is usually defined as knowledge gained by using the scientific method or perhaps knowledge derived from observations made by our five senses. Is there really a “war on science,” a war on knowledge?
The folks at AIG are shocked — shocked! — at the idea of a war on science. Avery says:
Those who cry foul at creationists or those who deny (or are skeptical of) man-made climate change display their own ignorance of the nature of science. There are two kinds of science: observational and historical. … The second kind of science is historical science. This science deals with the past and is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable. Fields like paleontology, paleoanthropology, or paleoclimatology fall into this category. You can’t directly test or observe past organisms or climates. So what you believe about the past determines how you interpret the evidence.
[*Groan*] That artificial bifurcation is a common tactic at AIG, and we’ve discussed it several times — originally in Creationism and Science, and also in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. The best rebuttal is The Lessons of Tiktaalik.
After that tired old clunker, Avery tells us:
Many scientists today start from the assumption of naturalism — the belief that nature is all there is. This is not a scientific statement — it cannot be tested using the scientific method or our five senses. It is a philosophical assumption that underlies the worldview of many scientists.
Scientists are fools! Avery explains why creationism is so much better:
Creationists and others reject this assumption and start with a different set of beliefs about the past. In the case of biblical creationists, the starting point is God and his Word. Therefore, the battle is not over the evidence; it’s over two different interpretations of the exact same evidence because of two different starting points.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Hey, why not believe in supernatural phenomena? Scientists can’t disprove them. She continues:
Many scientists, or even lay people, who reject evolution are very educated about evolution yet chose to reject it on scientific, philosophical, or biblical grounds (or a combination of these rationales).
Many creationists love science and get excited about new discoveries and innovations. We simply stand opposed to a worldview-based, naturalistic interpretation of historical science.
Skipping a lot, we come to the end:
This whole idea of a “science denial” epidemic is really just a disingenuous way of trying to make those who reject evolution and catastrophic man-made climate change look foolish, backward, and opposed to new ideas and progress. Creationists don’t deny science. We love science! But we seek to study and research to honor God and uphold the authority of his Word. This difference in starting philosophies results in a difference of interpretation.
Well done, Avery! Similarly, your Curmudgeon doesn’t deny creationism. We love creationism! But we seek to study reality, so we have a difference of interpretation.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.