As we often remind you, acording to literally dozens of uncontradicted passages in the bible The Earth Is Flat! Nevertheless, none of the creationist websites we follow ever admit this. Except for Discoveroids, they’re not embarrassed to say that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and was recently punished by a global flood, but they all refuse to say that it’s flat.
We see this 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. They just posted A Sort-of Book Review of Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea.
It was written by Dr. Danny R. Faulkner. Here’s AIG’s biographical information about him. They say he taught physics and astronomy until he joined AIG. His undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University. Here are some excerpts from Danny’s post, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
I recently read Christine Garwood’s 2007 book, Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea. [Here it is at Amazon] … I’m glad that I did. It is a very well-written and detailed book. Garwood is a historian of science, and she knows her trade well. I already knew quite a bit about leaders of the flat earth movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such as Samuel Rowbotham, Lady Blount, and Wilbur Glenn Voliva, but Garwood’s book filled in many details.
It’s a long article, so we’ll be skipping a lot of it. After a few paragraphs about Rowbotham, Danny says:
For some time, I had thought that the current flat-earth movement began when someone stumbled across books written by leaders of the flat-earth movement of more than a century ago. But now I’m thinking that perhaps it was Garwood’s book that may have given some ne’er-do-wells the idea to relaunch flat-earthism in the 21st century.
You gotta love it — one of Hambo’s creation scientists says the flat Earth folks are “ne’er-do-wells.” Then he tells us:
As an astronomer with a Ph.D. in astronomy and enough course work for a Ph.D. in physics, flat-earthers regularly dismiss my knowledge and expertise as rubbish. Some of these people whose formal education likely ended in high school think that they know far more about what science is and how it ought to be conducted. [Danny can somehow say that at the same time he works for ol’ Hambo’s creationist ministry.] … . There is only one word for the combination of such colossal ignorance and arrogance: hubris.
Oblivious to the irony of his situation, Danny gives us several paragraphs telling about flat-earthers and their bogus arguments. Although it’s fun to read, we’re skipping that stuff. Then he returns to the subject of Garwood’s book:
Throughout the book, Garwood mentioned the apparent similarity between flat-earthers and those who believe in a six-day recent creation. Though she doesn’t agree with biblical creationists, Garwood’s treatment is very fair. As a six-day recent creationist, I greatly appreciate her unbiased approach. Since I began writing about the flat-earth movement four years ago, there have been several critics who have responded to some of my articles. They point out what they think is very obvious hypocrisy on my part, or, at the very least, my supposed inability to see that I’m guilty of exactly what I criticize flat-earthers of doing. So, let me take this opportunity to address these accusations.
This should be fun! Danny continues:
Do flat-earthers and biblical creationists have much in common? [Hee hee!] For those flat-earthers who claim to base what they believe on the Bible, there appears to be some overlap. In fact, many flat-earthers say that creation ministries such as Answers in Genesis were very helpful in their development, but since have moved beyond us in believing that the earth is flat. Many flat-earthers speak well of Answers in Genesis, only expressing regret that we don’t endorse the notion that the earth is flat.
This is great stuff! Let’s read on:
However, some flat-earthers aren’t so kind. Shortly after Henry Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Charles Johnson approached Dr. Morris to combine forces to combat not only evolution and millions of years but also the “satanic agenda,” promoting the idea that the earth is a globe. Naturally, ICR declined this union. Consequently, Johnson became a critic of ICR and biblical creationists for not upholding what he thought was the whole truth of the Bible against the assault of science. Some current flat-earthers share this assessment of creation organizations such as Answers in Genesis.
Your Curmudgeon agrees — young-earthers and flat-earthers are natural comrades. In for a penny, in for a pound! But Danny doesn’t agree. He explains:
Keep in mind that not all flat-earthers today profess to base their beliefs upon the Bible. But those who do claim that the Bible clearly teaches the earth is flat. [It does!] You’d think that if that were the case, then somewhere in the Bible there would be at least one verse that says something like, “The earth is flat,” but no such passage exists. Instead, self-professed biblical flat-earthers must build their case upon questionable interpretations of several passages, at best drawing an inference.
Nonsense! Our discussion of the subject, to which we linked at the start of this post, lists numerous unambiguous passages about the Earth’s flatness, in both the Old and New Testaments — and there are no bible verses saying that the world’s a sphere. Danny probably knows this. Ah well, skipping an ark-load more from Danny’s post, we come to this:
There is another large difference between flat-earthers and creationists who don’t think the earth is flat: we don’t believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. [What?] For critics of biblical creationists, let me say that again: we don’t believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. [This is amazing!] I’m sure that our critics will be stunned to read this, but it’s their own fault because they have been too busy criticizing us to read or listen to what we say.
Okay, Danny, we’re listening — explain it to us. He explains:
We biblical creationists recognize that there are different genres in the Bible. The poetic and prophetic passages are replete with nonliteral usages. But before our critics go running off with what they think might be some great admission or blunder on my part, be aware that these nonliteral literary devices are largely absent from the historical narratives found in Scripture. And it isn’t that difficult to distinguish between the different genres in the Bible. But both flat-earthers and Bible skeptics can’t seem to (or don’t want to) grasp this.
Ah yes, it’s our fault! And now we skip to the end:
I believe that the first incarnation of flat-earthism began in the 19th century partly as an effort to discredit the Bible and Christians. The rise of Darwinism at the time certainly played a role in this. I also believe that the 21st-century rebirth of flat-earthism is an attempt by some within the movement to undermine creation ministries such as Answers in Genesis. [Wow — flat Earth folks are Darwinists!] Proclaiming the truth of biblical creation is my calling. Thus, I view the flat-earth movement as a direct threat to what I do, and I continue to battle this either misguided or malicious movement.
So there you are. The flat Earthers are either misguided or malicious. Only young Earth creationists preach The Truth™.
Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.