AIG Gives Writing Advice to Students

Sis years ago, based on our vast experience, we posted How To Write a Creation Science Paper. Now we have a “how to write” article written by and for creationists.

It’s at the website of 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. Their title is Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution, and it has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Every school year, students wanting to do a paper on “Creation vs. Evolution” contact Answers in Genesis for our advice and insights. [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] We think it’s great that so many young people are interested in writing on this topic, and we want to provide some helpful guidelines on how to approach the writing on this topic.

This should be good! AIG says:

When writing a paper, try always to follow the instructions given by your school or teacher, including sticking to the topic you were assigned. [Hey — that’s good advice!] For example, if your set topic is antibiotics, then it would be worth explaining antibiotic resistance. Then, you can explain why this is not an example of particles-to-people evolution since no new information is ever generated. [Hee hee!] It would not be appropriate, however, to discuss religion vs. science or the age of the earth in such an essay.

Stay with us, it gets better. AIG tells us:

If you have a report about rock formations, it is perfectly suited to discuss evidence of catastrophic formation of the rocks, but not for talking about the evolutionary basis of Nazism. [Aaaargh!!] It is essential to stay focused on the subject and on what you want to convey.

Amazing, isn’t it? They continue:

When writing your paper, do not state that “evolution is just a theory.” This is because the meaning of the word “theory” to you is not the same as its meaning to the evolutionist. To the layman, a “theory” is a guess or a postulation. To a scientist, a “theory” means a well-substantiated explanation of data. Calling evolution a “theory” gives it far too much scientific credit.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! They explain that further:

The evolution conjecture [Hee hee!] should not be called a “theory.” This gives it unwarranted respectability by association with real theories like that of Relativity, Newton’s Theory of Gravity, the Debye-Hückel theory of electrolytes, etc. All these theories have strong experimental support (although Newton’s theory has been augmented by Einstein’s). In contrast, evolution of life from non-living matter and from one basic type of organism to a different type has not the slightest experimental/observational support. At Answers in Genesis, we have published several articles about evolution [Link omitted.] that will help you know what to say when referring to this term.

Evolution has “not the slightest experimental/observational support.” Be sure to mention that in your paper, kiddies! Let’s read on:

Depending on your class and teacher, you may be expected to write about what you’ve been taught in class. The same thing can be said for examinations. You are being tested on your knowledge of the course. Please be aware that these are not appropriate times to “preach.”

Wow — that’s actually good. They expand on that advice:

For example, if you are asked “how old is the Earth?” then the (correct!) answer of ~6000 years [Hee hee!] will almost certainly be marked wrong because the course most likely would have stated ~4.5 billion years. To avoid lying, we recommend prefixing your answer by saying, “Most scientists believe that. . . ” or “The general consensus among geochronologists is. . . ” Remember, an exam is not a test of your personal beliefs. Instead, it is a test of how well you have learned and understood the material of the course as taught.

Isn’t this great? Here’s another excerpt:

When you write a paper to argue a point, try to anticipate possible responses. For example, if you say, “There are no transitional forms,” then your teacher may downgrade you and say, “Haven’t you heard of Archaeopteryx and Lucy?” While these examples are not convincing when looked at in-depth [Hee hee!], it would still be better to say, “While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of questionable examples.”

Yeah, only a handful — but see Wikipedia’s List of transitional fossils. Here’s more advice from AIG:

Or if you say, “There are no beneficial mutations,” your teacher may suggest, however inappropriately, sickle-cell anemia or wingless beetles as examples of mutations that can be beneficial to the organism. It would be better if you say, “Mutations have been observed to destroy, delete or corrupt genetic information or to be neutral, but have not been observed to add information.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! But see Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. This is our last excerpt:

When writing a paper on creation science, do your homework thoroughly and ensure you use the most up-to-date research. [In Genesis?] Familiarize yourself with the best creation science has to offer, and do not use these doubtful arguments. [AIG’s list of embarrassing clunkers.] Because you are discussing creation science, you will be held to a higher standard, and you want to be sure to represent Christ in excellence.

The rest of their article is a long list of links to AIG articles, so the kiddies can have access to the latest creation science. We have no doubt that creationist kiddies will be wildly copying that stuff and handing it in as their own work. Hey — you don’t think AIG provided those links for exactly that purpose, do you? No, of course not! And we’re sure that the kiddies will give appropriate credit to AIG by footnoting their homework papers. Creationists are always intellectually honest.

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

19 responses to “AIG Gives Writing Advice to Students

  1. particles-to-people evolution
    Is it good idea to use that phrase in one’s essay?

    After all, evolution is not about particles becoming people. That is a matter of
    something like, maybe, metabolism – how the particles of food in your stomach become your body. Or, maybe, about the account in Genesis 2, how Adam came from dust.
    Evolution is not about the origins of people. It is about the changes in populatons, in the inheritable traits of populations. And it is about life, and “particles” sound like non-living matter.

  2. Once again the made-up premise of “a man I know.”

    Nobody except a homeschooler is going to be writing such a paper, in which case the “teacher” is already a creationist.

    AIG – Lying since 4000 BC.

  3. Just a reminder: Hurricane Dorian will approaching the Florida coast tomorrow. Serious winds extend out from the center for at least 100 miles, so even if the center misses me, or stays off shore, it’s likely that power lines will go down all over the place and I’ll be off line. Nothing to be done about it. If that should happen, I’ll be at the mercy of overworked power company crews, but I’ll eventually be back.

  4. Laurettte McGovern

    That’s terrific. Let’s see how far you get in an actual institution of higher learning in an actual science class, where BS doesn’t get you very far.

  5. There is so much BS in that one article that it’s difficult to know where to start. I just take the last sentence “Because you are discussing creation science, you will be held to a higher standard …” What??

    But we must give the writer credit where he deserves credit. He distinguishes between the various meanings of “theory” and defines scientific theory as “a well-substantiated explanation of data”. Needless to say, evolution doesn’t meet that standard.

  6. Michael Fugate

    Did God speak humans into existence or did God craft them with hands – either way it is particles to people or material to man, no?

  7. Michael Fugate: Yes. It is astonishing how creationists can and do use cavernous gulfs in their own thought as means of attacking the science. “God created man in His own image”, or “God formed a human being from the dust of the ground” or “God built up a woman” from one of his ribs. Those are somehow unassailable. But “Complex organic molecules known to be formed by natural chemical reactions are precursors to others with the property of self-replication” is somehow incredible. Which is the larger gulf?

    Beneficial heritable variation is observed. Natural selection of beneficial variation is observed. Mere extrapolation is all that is required to provide an explanation for the origin of the species. But somehow that can’t be believed, because divine creation by fiat in one gestalt is preferred, with no observed evidence at all. And the kicker is that having made that flagrantly unreasonable choice, the creationist has the almighty gall to attack evolution on the grounds of insufficient evidence!

  8. Once again I call attention to the 1852 article by Herbert Spencer, “The Development Hypothesis” in Wikisource – and take a look at the quotations from it in Wikiquote.

  9. “students wanting to do a paper on “Creation vs. Evolution”
    Yeah, a paper on “Creation” alone would only take half an A4-sheet ….

    “real theories like that of Relativity”
    Huh? What’s this? Closely related to Relativity is …. the Big Bang. Ol’Hambo and co haven’t thought this entirely through.

    “ensure you use the most up-to-date research.”
    makes our dear SC ask: [In Genesis?]
    No. Of course the most up-to-date creacrap “research” in the first place can be found on the AIG site.

    @Hans: A great Dutch philosopher

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Cruyff

    once said: every disadvantage has its advantage.

    “There is so much BS in that one article that it’s difficult to know where to start.”
    So just pick a few of your favourites and leave the rest to other commenters! That way you can never go wrong with creacrap.

  10. @Our dear SC is as helpful as always: “Just a reminder …..”
    I’ll take the liberty to interpret this as “from now on this blogpost is an FFZ”. Finally I understand why statis (ie a lock of little or no evolutionary change in a species – I refer tp Wikipedia) disproves Darwinistic evilutionism. My trusty compatriots from Logos.nl have cleared this up. It’s a shorty, so I can translate the entire [bleepy!] piece.

    Evolutionary stagnation (Gert-Jan van Heugten)

    According to evolution theory species change. New features pop up and others disappear. But how to explain all those species that exist while remaining unchanged for millions of years?
    The fossil record doesn’t show gradual evolution, but evolutionary stagnation (stasis). Species appear suddenly, without assignable ancestors, and disappear again. Some of those species still exist. Think of sharks, crocodiles and horseshoe crabs, which are supposed to be unchanged for millions of years.

    The standard explanation for stasis is: stable environmental factors. Then there is no external evolutionary pressure on animals to change. But in all those millions of years according to naturalists climate has really, really changed. So appreantly this does not influence stasis after all. This means stasis can’t be explained by environmental factors.

    Then what could be the explanation? Naturalists admit they don’t have answers. Who looks at this phenomenon through a biblical lens, and hence doesn’t start with millions of years but with thousands of years doesn’t meet any problem. Then you don’t expect to meet living fossils, given the relatively short time interval between creation and now.


    Question to all the regulars: how often have you met such a nice piece of twaddle prattle tittle tattle? Let me once again try to tempt you to spend your holiday in my native country – the author is a regular lecturer at Logos congresses! How can you resist?!
    And be assured, no matter how godless you are (or not), there is no danger of hurricanes overhere.

  11. FrankB says:

    I’ll take the liberty to interpret this as “from now on this blogpost is an FFZ”.

    But I’m still here!

  12. Pretty sure that Twitler said the hurricane was going to strike Alabama, so our dear Curmudgeon should be quite safe.

  13. We hunkered down during Hurricane Ike in 2008 and were prepared for electricity and water to be out. Sure enough, when the power went out with a mighty “WOMPH” I said, “Well, that’s that.” We had no power for six days, but ate really, really well on stuff from the freezer that we grilled on the BBQ. Of course, by Day 6 we were down to Kat Chow and pool water, but, hey, Texas tough!

  14. Michael Fugate

    Good thing the blog is not FFOZ – then we would really be worried.
    ffoz.org

  15. Wow, MF – never heard of First Fruits of Zion – but when I clicked on Find a Club, the page doesn’t exist. So, I guess I am out of luck.

  16. Michael Fugate

    DE amazing what is lurking on the web.

    I wonder if we applied this to creationist text?
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/02/language-fake-news-linguistic-research

  17. MF – great idea! Maybe some home-schooler could do that for a science project.

  18. @Michael Fugate
    Yes, I read that.
    Maybe we should get more sex and violence in expositions of science. L:ike the Bible.

  19. Steve Gerrard

    AIG is not an example of particles-to-people evolution since no new information is ever generated.