AIG Explains Creation Science

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.

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

16 responses to “AIG Explains Creation Science

  1. I’d be willing to bet that “remedial math” is the closest Avery ever got to taking a science class while getting that theology degree.

    But at least it’s good to know that she got an “A” on the “copy and paste” part of the MS Word class she took. And she even managed to remove the Ken Ham signature on it first!

  2. It is not, I suppose, surprising that someone whose background is a MA in theological studies from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary doesn’t know that things such as the speed of electromagnetic radiation and the cosmic microwave background pretty much eliminate the young universe mythology of the bible from serious consideration. Unless, of course, she thinks some sky fairy, who is the ultimate trickster, did it all by magic.

  3. Michael Fugate

    I am pretty sure thinking never enters in.

  4. Dave Luckett

    Of course she thinks that, abeastwood, although she’d put it in different terms, something like: “God the Creator made all things by His Word, according to Divine Will.” Including the light of the distant stars as it was on its way to us. He made the stars, why not their light?

    Of course, if we had lived throughout history under a sky in which we observed stars suddenly appearing as the light from more and more distant ones reached us, then as soon as we were able to calculate that distance from standard candles and the known speed of light, it would give us a firm age for the Universe, say 6000 years. Apparently God didn’t want us to do that. Why not?

    Why, because it would be unimpeachable evidence that the Universe came into existence suddenly, at a known moment, in its current form. We would have to believe that creation was a single event, not a process, and that the entire history of the Earth and the Universe must be fitted into the Genesis time frame. We would have to believe the Genesis account. Faith would not be required for that.

    Wait, what? Say it again: faith would not be required for an acceptance of Genesis.

    And that’s why God didn’t do it that way. God requires faith.

    It all makes perfect sense, if you have attained the rarefied heights of a masters of arts in theological studies from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. We poor prosaic materialists, incapable of parsing the mind of God like that, are limited to what we can observe. How sad.

  5. And, of course, we know that things happened as @Dave Luckett explained, because one can’t think of any other way to make the Bible agree with what is need to be said to keep one’s job.
    It isn’t as if the Bible actually literally literally word for word …

  6. Holding The Line In Florida

    Put on the hip waders. The dung is deep! How anyone with one iota of intelligence can believe this dreck is amazing! I know that my students are exposed to reality. Whether or not they can overcome the bull feces they hear at home or church is debatable.

  7. Michael Fugate

    The other thing is – one must interpret the Bible also. We weren’t there – the individuals telling the stories and compiling the Bible spoke different languages from us – a different time and place. We can’t reconstruct their minds. Christians run the gamut from post-modernists YECs to those assuming the Bible is not about science or history at all. All Christians.

  8. There were people of the culture of the Ancient Near East, the culture which the Bible was written for, in their languages. Those people gave us clues about what they thought about the Bible. James L. Kugel wrote a book of samples of their interpretations: “The Bible As It Was”, Belknap Press, Harvard U. Press, 1997 ISBN 0-674-06940-4.

  9. god cannot lie?
    Hmmmmmmm

  10. Michael Fugate

    Who nowadays, for example, does not automatically think of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as telling about some fundamental change that took place in the human condition, or what is commonly called the Fall of Man? And who does not think of the “serpent” in the story as the devil, or paradise as the reward of the righteous after death? Yet careful reading of the Bible itself shows that none of these thing is said explicitly in the text—they are all a matter of interpretation.
    Kugel pg. 67

    One thing Kugel misses – there is a difference in knowing you will die vs. not knowing and this seems to be the fundamental change in humans – consciousness.

  11. @Paul S.
    God cannot steal, for all things belong to God.
    God cannot murder, for murder is unjust killing. But God can kill.
    God cannot lie. But does that mean that what God says to unworthy humans correspond to the way things are?

  12. Michael Fugate

    Seems likely that Mo Brooks learned science from AiG – rocks falling into the ocean cause sea level rise…
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/17/republican-congressman-mo-brooks-sea-level-rise-rocks

  13. Pete Moulton

    Avery sez: “Now, the Bible is not a science textbook, but it is the history book of the universe.”

    Actually, it isn’t a history book either. The wholly babble is nothing more than the campfire tales of a mob of nomadic Bronze Age goatherds, interspersed with oral genealogies and rules. It’s no more a history book than some steaming pile David Barton spewed out.

  14. Dave Luckett

    Pete Moulton, I don’t disagree: the Bible is not a history book, though it does record some historical events; but it is not a bunch of campfire tales told by nomadic Bronze Age goatherds, either. The central texts of the Old Testament come from literate city cultures well within the Iron Age, and can be very sophisticated in their theology, far more so than the simple folk tales that may be their basis, but from which they have travelled a long way. Look at the Book of Job, for instance, where that process is clearly visible.

    We don’t promote a realistic view of the Bible by asserting one that is as far removed from fact as the fundamentalist one.

  15. The highly sophisticated cultures producing the Aeneid, the history plays of Shakespeare, and War and Peace.

  16. Eric Lipps

    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.

    Therefore, we can’t trust what the Bible says about history either, especially since we can’t prove it was “written by the Creator of the universe”–that’s a matter of faith.

    But seriously, if “historical science” isn’t to be trusted, what can we know of the past? How can we even know Jesus existed? Creationists want to have it both ways: wave aside secular studies of the past but insist that the Bible’s account of the past is true in every detail. How do they know? Were they there?