Category Archives: Science

Ken Ham Is a Man of Science

Creationists need to have their own definition of “science” so they can tell their drooling followers that their bizarre beliefs are scientific. No one plays that game better than Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG). He’s the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

The first time we discussed ol’ Hambo’s personal definition of “science” was in Creationism and Science. He mis-defined the word generally, and then he made an artificial distinction between what he calls “operation science” and “origin science.” Hambo doesn’t object to the former, but he claims the latter is based on “secular assumptions” instead of “biblical assumptions.” The bible, of course, “is the eyewitness testimony of the Creator.”

There is a distinction between the historical sciences (cosmology, geology, climatology, plate tectonics, anthropology, paleontology, and of course evolution) and the “experimental sciences” that can be done in the lab. We can’t re-create the past, but we can study it scientifically. The historical sciences are based on verifiable observations and they produce theories are testable.

The reason Hambo and other creationists make their artificial distinction between historical and observational science is because the former so clearly contradicts the creation account in Genesis. Nevertheless, the claim that our investigations of the past aren’t scientific and can’t be tested is pure nonsense, readily refuted by The Lessons of Tiktaalik.

We discussed the same thing again in Answers in Genesis Explains Science to Us. Hambo mostly repeated himself, but he also informed us:

[M]iracles are possible within the Christian worldview. Naturalistic scientists simply dismiss the possibility of the supernatural. They do this not for logical reasons, but because miracles are incompatible with their beliefs.

We’ve written about Hambo’s distorted definitions a time or two since then, but it’s always the same old song. The only reason Hambo and other creationists make their artificial distinction between historical and observational science is because the former so clearly contradicts the creation account in Genesis.

Well, ol’ Hambo is doing it again. His new post is titled Exposing the Secularists’ Faulty Belief About Science. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

What is science? Well, there’s a lot of misuse of the word by secularists and the popular media. … Now, secularists often misuse the word science when they use it to refer to their molecules-to-man evolution belief, and then also misapply it to refer to technology, which is operational science (observation and repeatable testing). There’s a big difference between knowledge about the past (origins beliefs) and knowledge for building technology! You can’t observe, test, or repeat the past, so historical (or origins) science isn’t the same thing as observational science that can be directly observed, tested, and repeated in the present.

Nothing new there. Then he says:

The media also misuse the word science to claim that creationists are against science. We aren’t against science — AiG loves science, and we have staff with PhDs in various science fields!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve seen the writings of Hambo’s creation scientists. After that he tells us:

What the media really mean is that they accept secular beliefs — which they’ve labeled science — and reject creation beliefs. Since we don’t agree with their secular beliefs, they believe we must be against science. But we aren’t against science. We’re against an evolutionary, naturalistic interpretation of the evidence that contradicts God’s Word.

Very reasonable. He continues:

Secularists need to admit their faulty beliefs. [Hee hee!] But they don’t want to acknowledge they have any beliefs! They believe life somehow arose by natural processes, and they also believe in an unobservable process of molecules-to-man evolution. Secularists have a religion. They have beliefs about how the universe and life arose, and these beliefs affect how they interpret evidence in the present.

Hambo, of course, isn’t plagued by foolish beliefs about how the universe and life began. He has science on his side! And now we come to the end:

Creationists are more than willing to distinguish between beliefs about origins and observable science that builds our technology. But secularists refuse to admit what are obviously beliefs — they just keep claiming their beliefs are “science.” They make these claims to attempt to brainwash people into believing that molecules-to-man evolution can be proven — which it is most definitely can’t!

You’re the irrational fanatic with religious beliefs, dear reader. Ol’ Hambo is a scientist, all the way.

Copyright © 2016. 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

WorldNetDaily: God and Astronomy

Buffoon Award

The ever-vigilant Drool-o-tron™, with its blaring sirens and flashing lights, shattered the lull between Christmas and New Year’s Day. We were compelled to notice the blinking letters of its wall display, which said WorldNetDaily (WND). As you know, WorldNetDaily (WND) is the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus the jolly logo displayed above this post.

Our computer was locked onto WND’s latest article, At what point must science admit existence of God? That’s a most intriguing question! The article has attracted almost 50 drooling comments so far.

The author is Bill Federer, a frequent writer for WND. He’s been posting a series of articles in which he quote-mines his way through American history, picking out some issue or event, then quoting a President’s public mention of the Creator, or a general’s visit to church which coincided with a victory, and then claiming that everything good that has ever happened in American history was the caused by divine activity resulting from answered prayers. This historical “technique” goes far beyond mere quote-mining. It’s what we call reality mining.

Look at WND’s subtitle: “Bill Federer notes astronomers past, present who cannot deny Divine influence on cosmos.” Thus we are warned that Federer is playing his silly game with astronomy — one of the sciences most despised by creationists because it discloses facts that are so much in conflict with the small, Earth-centered universe imagined by the Genesis authors during the Babylonian empire. This should be fun. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

“O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!” wrote astronomer Johannes Kepler, 1619, “The Harmonies of the World.”

Federer has played the same reality mining game with Kepler before. That’s when we wrote WorldNetDaily: Science Is Biblical, in which we said:

It’s interesting that the first event in Federer’s history of religion-inspired science occurred a millennium and a half after the beginning of Christianity. What about the religion-dominated but scientifically barren centuries before Kepler? They’re not mentioned. And observe — Kepler doesn’t say that his discoveries were revealed in scripture.

[…]

Was Kepler serious, or were those words just sugar-coating to keep the Inquisition from his door? At the time he wrote that, he had to be aware that Giordano Bruno had been burned alive in 1600 for his astronomical teachings. We’ll never know.

Somehow, Federer fails to mention that Kepler’s works are among those found in Wikipedia’s List of authors and works on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Okay, so much for Kepler. Then Federer says:

The person most responsible for advancing the scientific method was Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626). Sir Francis Bacon, who helped found the Royal Society of London, wrote: “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.”

[…]

In his treatise titled “Of Atheism,” Sir Francis Bacon declared: “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

That’s nice. It doesn’t mean much, but it’s nice. Let’s read on:

A contemporary of Johannes Kepler was Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), who made the first practical use of the telescope. Galileo Galilei stated: “I am inclined to think that the authority of Holy Scripture is intended to convince men of those truths which are necessary for their salvation, which, being far above man’s understanding, can not be made credible by any learning, or any other means than revelation by the Holy Spirit.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Galileo was terrified of the Inquisition, so he often said such things. It didn’t help him, however, as is evident by the Galileo affair, which Federer never mentions. He continues:

Galileo’s work gave credence to the heliocentric theory of Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), where the sun is the center of the solar system instead of the earth, as Ptolemy’s geocentric theory had previously taught.

Another detail Federer doesn’t mention is that Copernicus had the good sense to delay publication of his heliocentric work until his shortly before his death, which might otherwise have been — shall we say — hastened by the Inquisition.

Federer’s essay goes on a bit longer in the same manner until we come to the final third of it, which is devoted to quotes from — brace yourself — Discovery Institute fellow traveler Eric Metaxas. We won’t bother with any of that, so we’ll end by asking the question presented in Federer’s title: At what point must science admit existence of God?

Well, dear reader, are we there yet?

Copyright © 2016. 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

Creationist Wisdom #737: Miracles Are Everywhere

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Northside Sun, a weekly newspaper published in Jackson, Mississippi, the state capital. It’s titled Christmas is a time to appreciate the miracle of life, and the newspaper has a comments section.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name — but today we’ve got an exception. The author is Wyatt Emmerich. He’s the newspaper’s publisher, and that certainly qualifies for full-name treatment. What we found is his column, so technically it’s not a letter, but it belongs in our collection. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Okay, here we go:

My Sunday School class discussed last week why miracles are not as prevalent today as they were in the time of Jesus. I beg to differ. Miracles are all around us all the time. The problem is we don’t see them. Our eyes are closed. When you are surrounded by miracles every second of your life, it’s hard to see the forest for the trees.

Wowie — we’re surrounded by miracles every second! Then he says:

In our increasingly humanistic secular society, science is replacing God. You see this in the global warming debate, in which secular humanists look to science, not God, to save our planet.

The fools! After that he tells us:

After all, Adam ate the apple because he and Eve wanted to know what God knows. We still do. We never stop trying. It’s not enough to accept that God is in control. We want to be in control. We want the power and the glory and the knowledge.

Lusting after scientific knowledge is sin! He continues:

I have been reading a book called “A Brief History of Time” written by Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest theoretical physicists of our era. He is an atheist. … The problem for Hawking is that as science unfolds the layers of the universe, God becomes more, not less, apparent. That’s tough for an atheist physicist to explain.

Hawking can’t explain anything because he’s an atheist. But Emmerich is wiser than Hawking. Let’s read on:

There are four main material forces in the universe: [he attempts to describe them]. As it turns out, if any one of these four forces was altered by the tiniest amount, the universe could not exist. How tiny an amount? That would be the number 10 followed by 27,000 zeros. We don’t have a word for that number.

We’re not told how that number was calculated. Another excerpt:

So how could this be? Hawking keeps asking this question again and again in his book. The best answer he comes up with is the anthropic principle, which goes something like this: “No matter how improbable the universe is, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question if it didn’t happen.” That’s it. That’s the best answer the greatest theoretical physicist in the world can come up with to explain how our world exists without God. Excuse me, Dr. Hawking, while I go read the Bible.

Ah, now we’re getting somewhere! Here’s more

It is one thing to deny miracles when all of science tells you they can’t be true. It is another thing to deny miracles when all of science points a huge neon flashing sign to God’s miracle of creation.

[…]

It’s not JUST the universe that is so miraculous. Earth is just as miraculous. If you factor in all the things that had to happen for human life to exist on earth, it comes to a number that exceeds the stars in the universe. Star Wars got it wrong. We are alone in the universe. The science proves it.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Science proves we’re alone! And now we come to the end:

So when you ponder on the miracle of Christ’s birth, don’t hesitate to believe with all your heart and soul. The promise is real, Far more real than human understanding. That’s a good reason to have a Merry Christmas!

That was a wise and inspirational letter — a fine addition to our collection.

Copyright © 2016. 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

Hambo Says The Bible Is a Science Book

Although creationists deny science that contradicts what they read in the bible, they’re strangely inconsistent. Despite what the bible says — e.g.: The Earth Is Flat!, and The Earth Does Not Move!, and The Scriptural Value Of Pi Is 3 — they ignore those things, but deny the theory of evolution and cling to the recent creation of the Earth and the universe.

That’s certainly true of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. The latest attempt from ol’ Hambo to bring order out of this epistemological chaos is titled Is the Bible a Science Textbook? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and Hambo’s bible references omitted:

I often have people tell me that “the Bible’s not a science textbook!” But the Bible is actually a textbook of historical science — and the only such textbook that is totally reliable and infallible.

Truly an inspirational beginning! Then he says:

Now, I’m glad the Bible’s not a textbook of science like those used in public schools, because it would change all the time. Many ideas have come and gone. For example, most of the evolutionary beliefs used by scientists in the transcript of the Scopes Trial have been abandoned — but God’s Word remains the same. It is the infallible Word of God — the true history book of the universe.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] The bible never changes! After that he tells us:

Secularists often accuse us of reading Genesis literally but not other portions of the Bible. We point out that we should read the Bible naturally. There is history (e.g., Genesis), poetry (e.g., Psalms), prophecy (e.g., Isaiah), and so on. Different genres of writing require different interpretative methods. Historical documents such as Genesis are not intended to be taken figuratively. [Bold font in Hambo’s text.]

Pay attention now, because Hambo presents secularists with a challenge:

My challenge to secularists is this: the evidence of creation is obvious, so “do not be unbelieving, but believing” [scripture reference] and “lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light”[scripture reference].

Yes — the evidence is obvious! Then he challenges the believers:

When you reject God’s Word in Genesis and interpret it through the lens of man’s fallible, opinionated word, more and more compromise is sure to follow. You see, when you start compromising in one area of the Bible, it isn’t long before compromise shows up in other areas. My challenge to all believers is this: believe all of God’s Word! [Bold fon’t in Hambo’s text.]

Thrilling, isn’t it? Hambo continues:

People are born and die, but “the word of our God stands forever” [scripture reference] — and no person can ever change that! Secularists can’t change this: “The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever”[scripture reference]. Many people try to change God’s Word, particularly in Genesis, but “forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven” [scripture reference].

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] What passion! What devotion! Your Curmudgeon is convinced! The Earth is flat. It doesn’t move. And pi = 3.

We’re trembling too much to go on, so we’re quitting now. It’s fortunate that the rest of Hambo’s post is just a commercial for his mind-boggling Creation Museum, and for Ark Encounter, his exact replica of Noah’s Ark.

Copyright © 2016. 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