For a long time now, you’ve been wondering how creationists can keep their brains locked on to all the stuff they believe. “How is it possible?” you keep asking. Well, dear reader, perhaps what we found today can explain it for you. And keep this in mind: What you’re about to read can be applied to subjects other than evolution. Politicians of various viewpoints can also benefit what we’re about to reveal.
We found it at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry ofKen Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Their article is titled Thinking Critically About “Ape-Man” Messages, and it was written by Patricia Engler. Their bio page about her says:
[She] serves as a speaker, writer and youth outreach coordinator for Answers in Genesis (AiG) Canada. Her passion for biblical apologetics ignited at age 14, when she first heard a seminar by AiG founder Ken Ham. After 12 years of homeschooling, Patricia completed a BSc with distinction at a liberal Canadian university. There, she studied intensely evolutionary courses to learn firsthand how Christian students can navigate secular education without compromising their biblical worldview.
Here are some excerpts from Patricia’s article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Rare 10-million-year-old fossil unearths new view of human evolution. … Long-awaited research on a 4.4-million-year-old hominid sheds new light on last common ancestor.
These are real headlines from science news websites, echoing the familiar story that millions of years ago, populations of apelike ancestors (hominids) gave rise to humans. What are biblically minded Christians to make of such messages? Here’s how you can use 7 Checks of Critical Thinking [Link omitted!] to reach a biblical, logical conclusion about any “ape-man” claim.
Patricia is going to teach you how to deal with all that Darwinist nonsense. Here it comes:
1: Check Scripture. The first way to detect a lie is by comparing it to the truth, with the ultimate standard for truth being God’s Word. [Sounds good!] Hominid claims fail this test because Genesis reveals God created living things according to their kinds and fashioned humans in his image, beginning with Adam.
She’s just getting started. There’s plenty more — like this:
2: Check the Challenge. Do hominid claims challenge foundational doctrines of Scripture? To find out, we can examine what happens if we try to wrangle evolutionary human ancestors into the Bible. Because fossils represent dead things, interpreting apelike fossils as human ancestors entails assuming death occurred in God’s very good creation before human sin, contrary to Scripture. This not only undercuts biblical authority but also falsely portrays God as the author of death.
Great stuff, huh? Patricia has a lot more — like this:
3: Check the Source. The next step is considering the source from which a hominid message originated. Generally, the most credible human sources are experts in a relevant field. But even experts, being human, are biased by their worldviews. Because the idea of ape-like human ancestors is incompatible with Scripture, hominid claims must stem from sources that make human reasoning, not God’s Word, their authority.
This is a big article, so we’ll have to skip a lot. Ah, here’s a goodie:
What assumptions are involved? Along with making specific assumptions about human ancestry, hominid messages assume earth is millions of years old and one kind of creature can evolve into another. These assumptions have serious issues which you can learn through articles on the age of the earth, radiometric dating, information theory, mutation, and natural selection. [Several links to AIG articles omitted!]
7: Check the Logic. What final logical errors might hominid messages contain? An especially common one occurs in arguments that claim that fossils “prove” evolutionary origins: [Example of bad logic:] If humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, then we should find similarities between human skeletons and ape-like fossils. We do find similarities between human skeletons and ape-like fossils. Therefore, humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.
This is a fallacy called affirming the consequent. We can see why such arguments are fallacious by creating another argument with the same structure: [Example of the fallacy:] If the car is out of gas, then it won’t start. The car won’t start. Therefore, the car is out of gas. [She explains the fallacy:] There could be many reasons why an engine doesn’t start, so failure to start is not itself proof that a car needs fuel. Likewise, common ancestry is not the only reason why humans and fossil apes may share similar features. For example, a biblical explanation states that similar features reveal apes and humans share the same Designer who engineered useful designs which apply across multiple creatures.
Isn’t this great? Alas, we’re only a bit more than half-way through Patricia’s article, and this is already long enough. Here’s one last excerpt:
Ultimately, a little biblical critical thinking reveals that, when headlines declare a fossil represents a human ancestor from millions of years ago, neither the human ancestor nor millions of years claims are observable facts. Rather, they’re historical interpretations built on faulty evolutionary assumptions. However, a biblical explanation that the fossil represents a post-flood human or extinct ape will likely be more consistent with the observational facts.
Your Curmudgeon can’t go on. If you like what you’ve seen so far, then click over to AIG and devour the entire article. Then get back here and give us your insights.
Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.