AIG Says: We’re Not Uneducated!

The creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia — are trying to comfort their drooling followers with this one. The title is “Only the Uneducated Reject Evolution”, and there’s no author’s byline. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Besides the arrogance of such statements [presumably a reference to the title of their post], this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution.

Yes, those hell-bound evolutionists are so arrogant! Then they say:

Any who disagree fail the test, no matter what their background (e.g., if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated).

Nice try, but the statement that creationists are uneducated applies to people today, now that evolution is such a well supported theory. After that they tell us:

[W]e could point out Darwin’s own deficit of formal education (he earned a bachelor’s in theology). But the bigger issue is that education — or lack thereof — does not guarantee the validity of a person’s position.

That’s true. Ol’ Hambo is always bragging about his staff of creationists, some of whom have advanced degrees. Their “education” is certainly no guarantee that they know what they’re talking about. AIG continues:

The argument, “Only the uneducated reject evolution,” is a logical fallacy on many fronts. It’s an ad hominem fallacy because it attacks the creationist rather than challenging the creationist’s view. It’s a faulty appeal to authority because it appeals to particular experts without acknowledging that many experts [Hee hee!] dispute the claim of evolution. It’s a “no true Scotsman” fallacy because even though there are many educated creationists [Hee hee!], they are reclassified as uneducated since supposedly no truly educated person would reject evolution.

Yes, dear reader, your criticism of creationists is just one fallacy after another. Let’s read on:

Those who believe that only the uneducated reject evolution perhaps do not realize that evolution, far from fact, does not even qualify as a theory. Evolution is a belief system about the past. Creationists also have a belief system about the past, but it is based on the historical account of the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God [scripture reference].

Wowie — evolution isn’t even a theory!

The rest of the AIG post is a big bible story, followed by a bible quote, so we’ll quit here. However, we’ve given you more than enough to cause you to change your attitude about creationists. They’re not uneducated. You are!

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

24 responses to “AIG Says: We’re Not Uneducated!

  1. I would say “miseducated” or “maleducated” rather than “uneducated”. I have never come across a Creationist who gives any appearance of actually understanding the Theory of Evolution they purport to disbelieve. Their conception of it is ubiquitously a caricature of it.

    I would also suggest that the Isaac Newton “counterexample” is truly moronic! Newton died over a century before the publican of On the Origin of Species, so was unavoidably “uneducated” on the subject of evolution. In a similar way, Aristotle was “uneducated” on Newton’s Theory of Gravity, so his opinions on planetary motion can likewise be dismissed (and ubiquitously are dismissed).

  2. Wowie is an understatement! 🙂 I clicked on over to Hambo’s site, and unfortunately this is only number 2 of the 12 arguments that are put forth. Of course, at the end if each argument is the sales pitch for the wonderful “educational” resources that the Hamites can purchase to show up those evilutionists. Is it possible to be highly educated in alternative reality?

  3. Michael Fugate

    Not uneducated, just wrong.

  4. Derek Freyberg

    I’m surprised that the Hamster says that the Bible “claims to be the word of God”, especially when his link says “All Scripture is breathed out by God” – usually the Hamster just says that the Bible is the word of God. He’s slipping.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    Logical fallacies? The whole post is one big strawman. Who said creationists are uneducated? Not even on this blog in years have I heard this statement. Whoever wrote the original post at AIG is uneducated in persuasive writing, and not self aware enough to know when they are using a logical fallacy. Sheesh!

  6. What do you expect? The folks at AIG are writing for the already persuaded, many of whom are indeed uneducated where science is concerned (as is unfortunately common in the United States). Therefore they don’t need to be especially persuasive, to avoid false statements or to employ logic.

  7. Apparently they don’t need any actual evidence either.

  8. Michael Fugate

    But the bigger issue is that education — or lack thereof — does not guarantee the validity of a person’s position.

    The PhDs at AiG are certainly proof of that.

  9. These AIG, ICR, and Uncommonly Dense characters with “PhDs” can’t get the science right at even the high school level. There is no evidence in any of their writings posted on their websites or in their “study” materials that any of these writers have a clue about basic scientific concepts. If any of them are picking up hints that people are talking about their lack of education, all they have to do is put the stuff they teach their followers into the crucible of scientific peer review and get some additional feedback on what they have already been getting for about 50 years now. Apparently they can’t even benefit from a hint.

    These characters truly are uneducated and ignorant because that is how they have trained themselves. They grew up with exegesis, hermeneutics, fake etymology, and generalized word-gaming; and they think that is how one gets educated. Just their use of language alone demonstrates that they don’t speak from having had a total immersion in the scientific experience.

    Making sure that everyone knows that they have letters after their names is not evidence of having obtained an education; they all have admitted at one time or another to their followers that they kept their heads down as they went through school. They all have gamed the system by avoiding any real testing of what they claim they know.

  10. ‘Evolution is a belief system about the past’ Creationism is a belief system about the past. What`s the difference?

  11. Christine Janis

    “What`s the difference?” Easy. Were you there? God was and His Word is in the Bible.

  12. Evolution is something which goes on in the world of life. It is not a belief system. It is not confined to the distant past. Evolutionary biology is a branch of science.
    Creationism is a negative advertising social/political campaign

  13. On average creationists are less educated than those who accept Evolution Theory. As always with probability distributions it’s not heard to find a few creationists who are well educated indeed. You can find yourself even several believers who would like to reject evolution, but just don’t yet.
    Those well educated creationists are worse – they are liars.

  14. They are stoopid! As stoopid is the wilful misunderstanding & non-education of a subject! Just like most of them are stoopid about the buyBull as well.

  15. And I agree with MNBO in that most of the creationists are Liars! Not just liars but LIARS4jesus which are the worse kind of liar…they lie to keep a lie real!

  16. Not uneducated, just unethical.

  17. I find no gain in characterizing any person in the antievolution movement.
    The arguments are wrong. The alternatives are empty. What more needs to be said?

  18. They are not “un-educated”, they are “ill-educated”. Simply a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO)!

  19. Holding The Line In Florida

    I guess it all boils down to your definition of what Education is. You know. It depends on what your definition of is, is.

  20. Christine, you can`t even keep your lying correct. That`s why there are so many bibles with different interpretations of the text. No originals to guide you, just the meanderings of men.

  21. TomS doesn’t find gain in exposing lies. I think that a “theory” that needs lies to be maintained very probably is false.

  22. Please, do not refer to creationism as a theory. It is not even false. It is an advertising campaign, a negative advertising campaign.

  23. Christine Janis

    “Christine, you can`t even keep your lying correct.

    There was a program I watched last night that talked about the difference between parody and sarcasm (e.g., Weird Al Yankovitch versus Saturday Night Life).

    So what I wrote was parody. Sarcasm would have been “Evolution and religion are both beliefs. We all have to believe in something, I believe I’ll have another drink.”

  24. Christine Janis

    To be fair to Ross Cameron, I haven’t been posting on here much recently so he probably didn’t recognise me as a regular being snarky.