Over at Answers in Genesis, an anonymous article (I think it reasonable to assume that Ken Ham is the author, or even if it isn't it cites one of his articles and encapsulates views he has expressed elsewhere) decides that the people peddling creationism don't want to be called "young-earth creationists" anymore. The author states that to many, announcing yourself a young-earth creationist (or YEC) is like saying "I'm an anti-science mystic."
Well, I couldn't have stated it better myself. Young earth creationists are the pinnacle of anti-science mystics, especially the ones taking an active, promotional role. Old earth creationists are slightly less so, and theistic evolutionists have it mostly right (though in speaking to several, some of the positions they hold are bizarre and anti-science as well). The strange world of Answers in Genesis, where it is more plausible to believe that a six hundred year old man brought two of every "kind" (or seven of every kind, if you read Genesis 7 rather than Genesis 6) onto a giant boat than to accept that life evolved, is at its core devoted to opposing science whenever it conflicts with their reading of Scripture, which is almost always.
The article wants them to be known as "biblical creationists", which in their opinion makes clear what the terms of debate are; as they always say, God's Word versus "man's fallible opinion." It makes clear that it is not scientific evidence that is at issue. "While examining the evidence is valuable, the issue is not the evidence itself. The main issue is our starting point for interpreting the evidence--either fallible human opinions or infallible Scripture." Well I'm very happy they admit that it isn't the evidence that's "at issue", because they have yet to advance any evidence in support of their view that everything around us came into being in six physical days with no evolution of any substance.
Their arguments rest on the complete accuracy of the Bible and the idea that a literal reading of nearly everything, including Genesis, is essential to Christian faith. This is something they harp on incessantly, and any Christians who dare believe otherwise are compromising their faith, and may well not even be Christians at all. This is their starting and ending point; evidence is a secondary consideration. Coming from this perspective, the very antithesis of the scientific process, it is no wonder that they manage to distort, twist and dismiss every piece of evidence for evolution and an old earth that comes their way. Their conclusions are preordained, and no evidence can be allowed to contradict it. Even the recent experiments that showed multicellular organisms evolving from single-celled ones, done right in a laboratory, was simply brushed off as inadequate and wrong in Elizabeth Mitchell's newest "News to Note" for Answers in Genesis. The experiment has its flaws, to be sure, and its authors were quick to note it, but here is exactly what creationists say they want, objective experiments in the lab to prove evolution. Yet when confronted with just such evidence it is dismissed, because such evidence cannot be allowed to exist because it conflicts with their worldview. Dr. Mitchell (a medical doctor, not a Ph. D. in science) concludes that this is selective breeding, not evolution.
This is what is so particularly frustrating about creationists; they plead that they just want a little real evidence for evolution. And then when we give it to them, they pointedly deny what is right in front of their face. Young earth creationists they are, and always will be, but if they don't like the name and want a new one, calling them "anti-science mystics" seems an apt name to me. It sums up their position perfectly.
Well, I couldn't have stated it better myself. Young earth creationists are the pinnacle of anti-science mystics, especially the ones taking an active, promotional role. Old earth creationists are slightly less so, and theistic evolutionists have it mostly right (though in speaking to several, some of the positions they hold are bizarre and anti-science as well). The strange world of Answers in Genesis, where it is more plausible to believe that a six hundred year old man brought two of every "kind" (or seven of every kind, if you read Genesis 7 rather than Genesis 6) onto a giant boat than to accept that life evolved, is at its core devoted to opposing science whenever it conflicts with their reading of Scripture, which is almost always.
The article wants them to be known as "biblical creationists", which in their opinion makes clear what the terms of debate are; as they always say, God's Word versus "man's fallible opinion." It makes clear that it is not scientific evidence that is at issue. "While examining the evidence is valuable, the issue is not the evidence itself. The main issue is our starting point for interpreting the evidence--either fallible human opinions or infallible Scripture." Well I'm very happy they admit that it isn't the evidence that's "at issue", because they have yet to advance any evidence in support of their view that everything around us came into being in six physical days with no evolution of any substance.
Their arguments rest on the complete accuracy of the Bible and the idea that a literal reading of nearly everything, including Genesis, is essential to Christian faith. This is something they harp on incessantly, and any Christians who dare believe otherwise are compromising their faith, and may well not even be Christians at all. This is their starting and ending point; evidence is a secondary consideration. Coming from this perspective, the very antithesis of the scientific process, it is no wonder that they manage to distort, twist and dismiss every piece of evidence for evolution and an old earth that comes their way. Their conclusions are preordained, and no evidence can be allowed to contradict it. Even the recent experiments that showed multicellular organisms evolving from single-celled ones, done right in a laboratory, was simply brushed off as inadequate and wrong in Elizabeth Mitchell's newest "News to Note" for Answers in Genesis. The experiment has its flaws, to be sure, and its authors were quick to note it, but here is exactly what creationists say they want, objective experiments in the lab to prove evolution. Yet when confronted with just such evidence it is dismissed, because such evidence cannot be allowed to exist because it conflicts with their worldview. Dr. Mitchell (a medical doctor, not a Ph. D. in science) concludes that this is selective breeding, not evolution.
This is what is so particularly frustrating about creationists; they plead that they just want a little real evidence for evolution. And then when we give it to them, they pointedly deny what is right in front of their face. Young earth creationists they are, and always will be, but if they don't like the name and want a new one, calling them "anti-science mystics" seems an apt name to me. It sums up their position perfectly.
Comments
Post a Comment