This is about an old article by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. It first appeared at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), Hambo’s creationist ministry, on 01 January 2012, but we ignored it. There was probably some real news going on at the time — like a battle over creationist legislation or litigation. Those things aren’t happening these days, so we’re glad AIG is running their clunker again.
The title is Doesn’t Science Disprove the Bible. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
In today’s world we often hear statements like “science disproves creation” or “science proves evolution.” Whenever we hear such claims, the first thing we should ask is “What do you mean by science?”
You know what’s coming next. Hambo very predictably says:
The word science comes from the Latin scientia, which means “knowledge.” When most people think of the word science, they tend to equate it with technology, yet secularists also equate the word science with molecules-to-man evolution and millions of years. To help sort out the confusion [Hee hee!], there needs to be an understanding that we can divide science into two categories:
Then he babbles about the false distinction made by creationists between “Operational” (or “Observational”) science and “Historical” science. We’ve written about it several times, originally in Creationism and Science. Creationists insist that bible history (six-day creation, Noah’s flood, etc.) is true, and to preserve their dogma, they claim that “historical” science which contradicts those bible tales is a silly 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. Our favorite rebuttal is described in The Lessons of Tiktaalik.
For your weekend amusement, here’s a bit of Hambo’s argument:
The Genesis account of origins gives us knowledge about the past, revealed by an infallible witness — God. [An infallible witness!] Those who believe in Darwinian evolution [The hell-bound fools!] claim to have knowledge concerning the past, too, but this knowledge is based upon the beliefs of fallible humans who did not witness the supposed evolutionary history. Genesis is the true account of historical science [the Truth™], whereas evolution is really a fictional historical science. Thus, the battle between creation and evolution (the Genesis account versus man’s account of origins) is really a battle over historical science.
Amazingly, he claims:
Observational science (in geology, biology, astronomy, anthropology, etc.) confirms the account of origins in Genesis and refutes the evolutionary account. (Many of these confirmations are available on our website, [link to AIG omitted].
Wowie — observational science confirms Genesis! After that declaration, he tells us:
When listening to arguments that supposedly support evolution [Hee hee!], you have to learn how to separate observational science and historical science. Here is one example to get you thinking in this way: if you see a claim that sedimentary rock strata containing fossils are millions of years old, then you need to sort out what is observational versus historical science.
How do we sort it out? He explains:
The statement that rocks are sedimentary rocks is one of observational science. Both creationists and evolutionists agree on what is directly observed. [Okay, now what?] But the claim that the rocks are millions of years old falls under historical science. [Gasp!] It is not observational but rather an interpretation regarding the past.
It’s only an interpretation! That means it’s worthless! Geologists have been lying to us! Hambo continues:
Biblical creationists would not agree with this interpretation but instead interpret the fossils as a deposit from the Flood of Noah’s day or some post-Flood catastrophe that occurred only thousands of years ago.
Ooooooooooooh! It’s the Flood!
Now we’re at the end, where Hambo gives us his thrilling conclusion:
Thus, observational science cannot disprove the Bible. We agree on the observational science but totally disagree on the historical science. The problem is not with the operational science but with the mistaken interpretation of unobserved history.
We’re glad the folks at AIG decided to reprint that oldie-goldie from the past. One can never get enough of ol’ Hambo’s wisdom.
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.