Something New from Jason Lisle

We’re always looking for creationist entertainment, so we were delighted when We Found Jason Lisle’s New Website. As you recall, he’s the creationist astrophysicist who used to work for ol’ Hambo’s Answers in Genesis. He left Hambo a few years ago to go with the Institute for Creation Research. Now he’s on his own.

Jason doesn’t post often, but today he gives us a long email debate he had with someone named Colin: Is Genesis Historic and Reliable? We hope it won’t be too much of a spoiler if we tell you that Jason claims the answer is “Yes.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

[Colin asks:] Dr Lisle, why do you think the Bible is Scientific or reliable when most Ancient Historians know it is historized Fiction?

[Jason answers:]: Actually, ancient historians verified much of Scripture. Consider the writings of historians like Josephus and Herodotus and how they confirmed many of the events of the Bible as literal history. [What?] Modern archeology has further confirmed many of the events recorded in Scripture. The fallen walls of Jericho have been excavated. The remnants of Sodom and Gomorrah have been found. What gave you the impression that the Bible is historized fiction? As a matter of procedure, how do you know what happened in the distant past so that you can check the record of the Bible? [Were you there?]

The Bible has demonstrated itself to be God’s Word, and must therefore be accurate on all matters on which it touches. This necessarily includes science and history. You can easily check some of the scientific claims yourself. For example, the Bible teaches that you will reap what you sow (Galatians 6:7). Why not perform a scientific experiment to test the claim? Plant some corn and see what grows. If corns grows, then the Bible is right in its scientific claim. But if strawberries spring from your corn kernels, then you would at least have some basis for claiming that the Bible has scientific errors.

This is very disappointing. We thought Jason was a smart guy and so we were expecting better. Well, here’s the next question:

[Colin says:] Even other Christians don’t agree with you let alone Sceptics [sic]:

[Jason responds:] Actually, many Christians agree with me. But even if the majority of people are ignorant of history, this has no bearing on the truth of the historical events recorded in Scripture. Even most secular historians understand that the Bible contains accurate history, even if they don’t agree with all of the details. The existence of Abraham as recorded in Genesis, for example, is well established.

We could be inserting a “Groan” or “Gasp” or “Hee hee!” into every sentence, but it’s not worth the bother. Here’s one more exchange between the two:

[Colin asks:] Why do people laugh at creationists?

[Jason responds:] Proverbs 29:9. When you cannot answer your opponent rationally, mockery and laughter are often substituted. People laughed at Copernicus for his belief that the Earth orbits the sun, and at Galileo for his belief that the moon had craters. This is utterly irrelevant to any rational consideration at all. Incidentally, you will either be laughed at and mocked by people, or you will be laughed at and mocked by the God of Truth (Psalm 2:4). It’s your decision.

We’ve only given you about 10% of Jason’s post. If you crave more, click over there and enjoy yourself. Hey — we’re starting to figure out why Jason kept leaving his earlier creationist employers. Maybe the quality of his work wasn’t up to their standards.

Copyright © 2019. 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

38 responses to “Something New from Jason Lisle

  1. People laughed at Copernicus for his belief that the Earth orbits the sun, and at Galileo for his belief that the moon had craters.

    Is this true?
    I suppose that there were some people who laughed. Just as there are some people today who laugh at those of us who think that the Earth is round. And it is reported that Luther said, about Copernicus,
    “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.”
    But it isn’t reported that Luther laughed at Copernicus.

  2. Theodore Lawry

    The fact that corn, and not strawberries, grows from corn is evidence that the Bible is scientific!!!??? This from a man with a PhD from U. Colorado? If I were friend or family of Jason Lisle, I would seriously want him to be checked for cognitive deficit. Get his head examined, as we used to say. I mean really, you have to wonder!

  3. Michael Fugate

    Jason it is a metaphor. It is not literal. It requires higher order thinking to understand symbolism. Something you don’t possess.

  4. Why do people laugh at creationists? No better answer than the extensive collection of eponymous videos, I think 38 or so, by YouTuber Thunderf00t.

    Here is one discussing Kent Hovind’s nonsense.

    There is really no difference between Hovind and Lisle other than Hovind’s felony conviction, prison time and fake PhD.

    As an observation, the quality of Lisle’s nonsense has been going downhill. It could be that his religious delusion is becoming more serious and impacting his cognitive ability. Joking aside, he probably should have his head examined. Something’s not right with that boy!

  5. “you will either be laughed at and mocked by people, or you will be laughed at and mocked by the God of Truth (Psalm 2:4). It’s your decision.”

    Maybe there’s a third way: following the evidence so that people admire you and, if God turns out to actually exist, you can honestly say that you used that big brain he gave you to figure things out, instead of putting it in Park.

  6. As a matter of procedure, how do you know what happened in the distant past so that you can check the record of the Bible?
    Isn’t he the one who is claiming that he can check the record of the Bible?

  7. Derek Freyberg

    “They laughed at Copernicus, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Jason Lisle.”
    Not as good as the original, though.

  8. BTW Psalm 2 doesn’t talk about the truth. It is about people who are rebelling, and the poweful boss God laughs at their weakness.
    See the fallacy of Argumentum ad Baculum.

  9. Charles Deetz ;)

    So if wrote a book where the first sentence is “the sky is blue”, would it therefor be that the rest of the book is factual and scientific? Nuttier than even the creationist letters to the editors that the Curmodgeon shares so frequently. Its a gosh dang metaphor you yutz!!!

  10. Remember the story of Heinrich Schliemann, who verified the Iliad and Odyssey by finding the real, historical Troy?

  11. Actually, Colin sounds almost as gormless as Jason — “Ancient Historians”[sic] — perhaps he should have read some of SC’s posts about not engaging with creationists, especially on their terms.

    “Why do people laugh at creationists?”

    This is a very existential question. Many great minds have pondered this mystery. Why does the cat toy so cruelly with the captive mouse? Why doesn’t she just kill the mouse, and be done with it? I asked my cat, but she went all cryptic on me, and refused to tell.

  12. You may find this discussion out on Peaceful Science interesting:

    https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failure-of-jason-lisles-asc-paradigm/4175/22

  13. Michael Fugate

    I wonder if Jason has tried this one from Matthew 17:20?
    And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

  14. Who imagines that anyone who claims some book can verify itself (“The Bible has demonstrated itself to be God’s Word, and must therefore be accurate on all matters on which it touches”) can know much about anything, let alone history and science?

  15. “… [Jason] used that big brain [gawd] gave you to figure things out, instead of putting it in Park.”

    Creationists brains, including Jason’s are NOT in Park, they are in Reverse.

    Jason himself is very willing to toss out Special and General Relativity (upon which even the GPS system relies) and Doppler shift to support a collection of primitive flat Earth writings that today are recognized as absurdly wrong in describing how the universe works. It is also wrong to refer to Lisle as an astrophysicist since he doesn’t actually do any science anymore, religious apologetics is his new occupation.

  16. “Actually, ancient historians verified much of Scripture. Consider the writings of historians like Josephus and Herodotus and how they confirmed many of the events of the Bible as literal history.”
    Leave it to Jason to exaggerate everything that suits him. Herodotus confirms that Egypt was ruled by a pharao. That’s “many events”.

    “The fallen walls of Jericho have been excavated”
    Let me remain charitable for the time being and call Jason a supermaximalist.

    https://www.livius.org/articles/theory/maximalists-and-minimalists/

    Those excavated walls cannot be linked to the Biblical story:

    “no remains have been excavated of a wall that has collapsed in the Late Bronze Age, which contradicts the Biblical account of Joshua’s capture of the city.”
    Jason being a YECer we must expect him being flexible when it comes to dating everything dug up. So if you prefer to call him a liar I won’t contradict you.

    “The existence of Abraham as recorded in Genesis, for example, is well established.”
    Ah. According to Jason the story of Abraham is nothing but a detail secular historians don’t agree on.

    “When you cannot answer your opponent rationally, mockery and laughter are often substituted.”
    Jason, undoubtedly by accident, writes something sensible! Because it is impossible to answer Jason rationally, the reason being that he himself rejects reason.

  17. @TomS doesn’t entirely grasp how flexible Jason is

    People laughed at Copernicus for his belief that the Earth orbits the sun, and at Galileo for his belief that the moon had craters.
    and asks: “Is this true?”
    Copernicus preferred to discuss his work with scholars and to avoid stupid amateurs. After reading Jason’s 10% as selected by our dear SC we must admit that the great Renaissance man from Poland had a good point.

    https://historyforatheists.com/2018/07/the-great-myths-6-copernicus-deathbed-publication/

    “in his prefatory dedication of De revolutionibus to Pope Paul III, Copernicus himself gives us an insight into the real source of his hesitation:”

    “….. rather to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others, who used to transmit philosophy’s secrets only to kinsmen and friends, not in writing but by word of mouth …”

    One of the people who “laughed at Copernicus” was …… Maarten Luther.

    “There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.”

    Pretty much the same way Jason reacts to any suggestion that the Universe is older than 6000 years.

  18. I knew Herodotus . Herodotus was a friend of mine. Lisle knows nothing about Herodotus. Lisle is name dropping. Dishonestly, of course. Lisle isn’t qualified to shine Herodotus’ shoes, even if he wore them.

    Consider for a moment Lisle’s slide into oblivion. He started out a college student, then a grad student (although by all accounts a weird duck), then lost a series of jobs with creationist outfits.

    Let that sink in.

    Lost jobs with creationist outfits. Even Klinkerklapper maintains his job with a creationist outfit. Even Brain and Savvy maintain jobs with creationist outfits. Good grief, even Green Screen maintains a job with a creationist outfit.

    Outside of Dr. Dr. Billy “Totally Unemployable” Dumbski, how bad do you have to be to lose jobs with creationist outfits. It’s not even a low bar because there isn’t a bar. So, there’s something about Lisle that’s so disturbing that he can’t even schlep along with a creationist outfit. Hashtag SAD.

  19. Oh Great Hand from Above – Jason’s god, sometimes called YHWH, in his rage has thrown my answer to TomS into the dustbin. But my faith in You remains unshaken, no matter how often I’ve sinned lately and how bad I’ve been. I know that your power is the superior one and ask You to have mercy on me.

    [*Voice from above*] Trashing your comment was the work of a lesser god. It should be restored now.

  20. @TomS: “But it isn’t reported that Luther laughed at Copernicus.”
    Well, the infamous quote from Luther contains some mockery and Jason being flexible hence can be understood as L laughing at C.

    @Docbill asks us to “Consider for a moment …..”
    Yeah, Jason appears to be the leader of the creationist pact in the eternal race to ultimate stupidity.

  21. I somehow think “Colin” is a figment of Doc Lisle’s rich imagination.

  22. @Draken
    There is a long, honorable, tradition of inventing an opponent in a dialog.

  23. Michael Fugate

    Does Jason really believe his creationism is on the same scientific level as Galileo and Copernicus?

  24. Incidentally, you will either be laughed at and mocked by people, or you will be laughed at and mocked by the God of Truth (Psalm 2:4). It’s your decision.

    Actually, the “God of Truth” doesn’t seem to be the laughing and mocking type. He’ll send bears to rip apart men who make fun of one of His prophets, for(just one) instance.

  25. “The Bible has demonstrated itself to be God’s Word.”

    How do we know God exists?
    Because the bible says so.
    How do we know the bible is true?
    Because it’s God’s word.
    Repeat ad nauseum.

  26. @Michaek Fugate
    Do any of the creationists really think that they have a positive explanation for the variety of life on Earth? Do they just happen not to notice that they don’t have an alternative to evolution?

    @Eric Lipps & @Matt
    As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible which says that the Bible is the infallible word of God. That it is true on every subject whkich it mentions, historical or scientific.
    The fact that this essayist has cited proof-texts which do not say that, leads me to suspect that there is no such statement in the Bible.
    The standard proof-text that is often cited is 2Timothy 3:16
    “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
    (I know that there is some disagreement on the translation, “All scripture given by inspiration of God is …” but I don’t worry about that.)
    This plainly does not say anything about truth – it is about being”profitable”, or “useful”. (Unless you want to claim the pragmatic defintion of truth?)
    Moreover, it happens to list the things that it is useful for; for teaching, (“doctrine”), reproof, correcton, instruction in righteousness. no mention about history or biology or astronomy or geography or mathematics or design or esthetics or law.
    If that is the best that they can do, then, I strongly suspect that there is nothing anywhere in the Bible about it being the truth about evolution.

    Creatioists are famous for quote mining. Before to accept what they say about the Bible, check what the Bible actuallly says.

  27. “… check what the Bible actually[sic] says.”

    Which version? There are over 100 variants and religionists are very busy creating yet more versions to hide their embarrassment over the primitive statements that occur in the earlier more “original”* versions.

    *I seriously doubt that there was ever a single “original” version due to the large number of early Christian sects. A number that has only grown to over 45,000 sects today.

  28. Of course 2 timothy referred to above by TomS is widely viewed as pseudoepigraphical, or in layman’s language
    a forgery

  29. I am aware that there are difficulties with this proof text. But even taking it at face value, it only says that the Bible is useful for a few restricted uses. If you are looking for a guarantee of the biology assumed in the Bible, this text doesn’t do that.

  30. The creationists like to do this so much, they do it so often that they get away with it. The old red herring. They don’t talk about the subject. They bring up a different subject, but the subject has obvious problems, so you take the temptation, and go after those flaws. And, instead of sticking to the original failure to address the question, you are facing an exponential number of issues.
    Not just one red herring, but n^m red herrings. Such fun.

  31. @TomS: “Do they just happen not to notice that they don’t have an alternative to evolution?”
    Once I asked a Dutch IDiot (who hated to be called a creationist). His answer was twofold:
    1. a long list of undefined terms (in Dutch called “shoutology”);
    2. “of course when evolution theory is wrong IDiocy must be correct!”

    “As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible which says that the Bible is the infallible word of God.”
    AfaIk the argument goes like “God is infallible hence his Word is infallible.” Me being a staunch unbeliever hardly cares. My unbelief doesn’t depend on the fallibility of that book..

  32. And because God is infallible his creations are imfallible?

  33. The Discoveroids will never have an alternative to evolution until they provide empirical evidence of a mechanism for how “design” is actually manifested in physical terms. In other words, a natural mechanism. But once you go down that road — to talk in terms of how physical functions and structures work– you inevitably must arrive at a form of naturalism, which obviates the need for a god/designer in the first place.

    They’re caught in a paradox of their own making. The only way around it, in their eyes, is to posit the “supernatural”, which is tantamount to saying “magic.” The “supernatural” is appealing to invoke — for theists — because of its vaunted explanatory power; but ultimately self-defeating, since they can only point to physical processes, and hope everyone accepts there’s a non-physical, “supernatural” cause behind them.

    The alternative to evolution turns out to be “invisible”, just like their god.

  34. @ChrisS
    That sounds reasonable to me.
    But they could rebut it by giving an example of an explanation which fits their demands. What happens so that things turn out this way, among all the possibilities?
    The fact that no one has done that reinforces your reasoning.

  35. @TomS: “And because God is infallible his creations are imfallible?”
    Don’t ask me – like I already wrote I hardly care. I merely repeat what I’ve met.

  36. BTW I know that this will be rejected as worthless by those who say that the Bible is confirmed by archeology, but there is a different opinion. For example, see the Wikipedia article on Abraham, which cites several recent scholarship. For example, the stories about Abraham in the Bible seem to describe a culture of the first millenium BCE, as if the the stories were composed by writers, and for an audience, of that era. The traditional date of Abraham is about 2000 BCE.
    Also, and again I know that this will be dismissed by others, There is a Wikipedia article on “Wall of Jericho” which is about a Stone Age wall dating from about 8000 BCE, far older than the traditional dating of the Biblical Battle of Jericho, something like 1400-1200 BCE.
    As I say, it is pointless to argue this to someone who has an unshakeable belief in the historicity of the Bible. But there are archelogists who disagree that archeology confirms the sort of thing that this writer mentioned.

  37. “But there are archeologists who disagree that archeology confirms the sort of thing that this writer mentioned.”
    Quite an understatement, unless you count zelot amateur diggers as well. I don’t.

  38. How about 1 Thess. 2:14-15 : “For ye also have suffered like this of your countrymen, even as they have of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus Christ and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men.”
    First of all, it was not Jews, but Romans, who killed Jesus.
    And, if we are to believe the Bible, there were many prophets who died natural deaths. Moses, for example. Elijah was taken up into heaven. John the Baptist was killed, not by “the Jews”, but by Herod. Of those prophets who were killed, how many of them were killed by “the Jews”, and how many were killed by others?

    I know that it is pointless to bring up things like these, because Bilblical apologists have centuries to work around stories to justify the plain text of the Bible. Of course, the work that is done on that is not permitted to justify other texts, when those texts say what they apologists want to believe.

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s