This one is a bit of a classic from the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. Their title is something they hear all the time: “Doubting Evolution Is like Doubting Gravity”, and it has no author’s byline. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Why does this argument fail? [They’re talking about the one in their title.] We’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it (and observe it as it falls) to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism — like an amoeba — turn into a goat. Too difficult? OK, let’s make it easy. Just turn the amoeba into a paramecium, another type of single-celled creature. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.
[*Groan*] One again, it’s the false distinction made by Hambo’s creationists between “Operational” (or “Observational”) science and “Historical” science. To preserve their biblical myths (recent creation, Adam & Eve, Noah’s Ark, etc.), they claim that “historical” science which contradicts those bible tales is a belief system based on unproven assumptions, because there is no way to go back in time and use observational science to prove those assumptions are correct. We’ve written about this several times, originally in Creationism and Science. It’s also discussed in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Our favorite rebuttal is in The Lessons of Tiktaalik.
Okay, you know what AIG will be talking about. Let’s read on:
Operational science involves the scientific method — observing the data, proposing a hypothesis, performing experiments, and drawing conclusions. Historical science involves interpreting past events through a preconceived worldview. That’s why evolutionists and creationists, interpreting the same evidence through their opposing worldviews, can come to starkly different conclusions.
Yeah, we’re the ones with a “preconceived worldview.” They say:
The irony of the argument — “doubting evolution is like doubting gravity” — is that the scientist who proposed the theory of universal gravitation, Sir Isaac Newton, was a young-earth creationist. … Because Newton believed the Genesis account that God created the heavens and the earth, he assumed orderly physical laws, such as gravity and the three laws of motion, would rule them both.
Newton’s mind must have been strange indeed. Orderly physical laws don’t leave any room for the unpredictable and incomprehensible chaos of miracles. After that, AIG tells us:
These constants of nature do not make sense in a world that began by chance without the Designer. [Huh?] If we live in a random, chance universe consisting of only matter in motion, how can we account for the mathematical laws of nature that govern everything from a massive star to a tiny electron? Only the biblical worldview can support the uniformity of nature, without which the practice of science would be impossible. The fundamental laws of nature operate consistently through time and space because the omnipotent, immutable Creator ordained them and is upholding the cosmos by His power [scripture references].
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Do these people ever listen to themselves? Probably not. They continue to babble, right to the end of their post:
No wonder the Bible calls an atheist a fool [scripture reference]. Conversely, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” [scripture reference]. In order to have an accurate framework for understanding God’s world, we must start with God’s Word, beginning with His revelation of Genesis.
That’s it, dear reader — the best thinking from ol’ Hambo’s creation scientists. Reject at your eternal peril!
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.