This is a bit of a classic from Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.
It’s titled Feedback: “You Can Question Science”, and it was written by Avery Foley. AIG says she has a masters of arts in theological studies from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. We’ll give you some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections [that look like this]:
It begins with a Twitter comment ol’ Hambo received from someone named Steve:
You can question science. That’s the beauty of it. However you’d most likely be wrong. Science has no other agenda but to seek the truth. I think this maybe [sic] why you have a problem with it, because the truth contradicts the earth being 6,000 years old and us all coming from 2 people.
Naturally, the creation scientists at AIG think that Steve is horribly confused. Avery says:
Steve begins his tweet by claiming that the beauty of science is the ability to question it. Of course, those familiar with science know that scientists try to disprove, not prove, their hypothesis. And future evidence can overturn what was already believed to be established science. So, of course, scientific findings can be questioned.
Surprisingly, that’s not bad. Then Avery tells us:
However, in context, Steve is referring to millions of years and evolution. And what he overlooks is the difference between observational and historical science. Observational science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. … Historical science is very different. This kind of science is not directly testable, observable, and repeatable because it deals with the past. And the past cannot be directly tested, observed, or repeated.
[*Groan*] Not that old clunker again! It’s dealt with in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. She continues:
What a scientist believes about the past will determine how they interpret the evidence. Each scientist comes to the evidence with a preexisting set of beliefs that determines how they view and interpret the evidence. The evidence does not “speak for itself.” It must be interpreted, and that is where the disagreement between creationists and evolutionists comes from. They approach the evidence with different starting points (God’s Word vs. man’s word), and therefore arrive at different interpretations of the exact same evidence.
So far, it’s the same old stuff. Let’s read on:
While science has no agenda, scientists do! Many people perceive scientists as unbiased pursuers of the truth. But each scientist approaches the evidence with a preconceived set of beliefs. And they interpret the evidence through that lens, which, for many scientists, is molecules-to-man evolution and billions of years of history. … [U]nobservable molecules-to-man evolution and ancient ages for earth and the universe do not come from the evidence. … They are assumed and then used to interpret the evidence.
Hambo’s creation scientists would never behave that way! Here’s another excerpt:
Steve concludes his tweet by claiming “the truth” contradicts what the Bible says about the age of the earth and the origin of humanity. Really, he is taking an interpretation of the evidence, and calling it “truth” when it is no such thing. It is simply a constantly changing interpretation.
Truth is ultimately found in God’s Word and the person of Jesus Christ. God cannot lie and the Scriptures come from him Therefore, we know the Scriptures are truth. [Scripture references omitted.]
Are you paying attention, dear reader? That’s where The Truth™ is found. Here’s more:
Now, the Bible is not a science textbook, but it is the history book of the universe. When it touches on fields such as astronomy, biology, geology, cosmology, and anthropology, it is always accurate and trustworthy, since it was written by the Creator of the universe who also maintains it [scripture reference].
Ponder that, dear reader. When you’re done, we’ll continue:
We can take the framework the Bible gives us (i.e., young creation, organisms reproducing according to their kinds, mankind created specially in God’s image, a global flood, and the Tower of Babel) and use that to create hypotheses and models, which are subject to change as more evidence emerges. [Really?] These hypotheses and models include understanding speciation within kinds, models of deposition during the flood, what mechanisms could bring light from distant stars to earth in only thousands of years [Hee hee!], and many more. Because God’s Word is the starting point, these models will not contradict what Scripture tells us. But we can use them to create testable predictions, the gold standard of science. As that research is done, the model can be modified or discarded if need be.
But somehow, creationist “models” are never discarded. And now we come to the end:
Steve is wrong — “truth” has not, does not, and will never contradict God’s Word. God’s Word will stand forever [scripture reference], long after man’s ideas have come and gone.
Now that you understand how creation science works, perhaps you’ll abandon Darwinism and embrace The Truth™.
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.