Skip to main content

A Student Wants Advice

A student wrote to Answers in Genesis for advice. What he got was the sophistry, bad-arguments and muddle-headed thinking that so characterizes that organization. The exchange is fine amusement, if one is in the mood to simply laugh at nonsense rather than feel the anger that often accompanies the attempts of the anti-science crowd to lie, distort and malign evolution. The student in question is afraid of majoring in science because of the "stigma" a young-earth creationist would get from the "Darwinist camp." Already, I'm saddened to see a student so interested in science have his enthusiasm tempered in the name of fundamentalist dogma.

The authors of the article, two of the lesser lights of Answers in Genesis apparently, whom I've never heard of before, responded with a lengthy article, part advice and part delusion. They first recommend that this student consider attending one of the AiG-approved colleges where young-earth creationism is taught as science (the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University is specifically mentioned by name--he continues to haunt our society). Barring that, they recommend that he not stimulate argument--one would hate to see his misconceptions shredded by the facts--but all the same be ready to defend the creationist interpretation of the Bible.

"Through your biblical worldview, filter everything you learn," they tell the student, disregarding the fact that this isn't how science works. Facts about the world are not run through the Bible, Koran, Torah, War and Peace, Lord of the Rings, or any other book to test their validity, they are tested in the field, on the chalkboard or in the laboratory. I can think of no better recipe for a student to emerge ill-educated from college than to tell him to keep a closed mind as they go, and this is exactly what these authors are telling him.

This student is told to keep "God's Word" (and whenever creationists use this phrase, they mean their own literalist interpretation of Genesis) in mind as he studies science. Because obviously we don't want "scary science" dispelling the stories of Genesis about forbidden fruit, global floods and nine hundred year old men.

What is so tragic in Answers in Genesis' continuing quest to destroy science education in this country, both at an individual and societal level, are students like the one who wrote this letter, students who love science but are ill-served by Ken Ham's flights of fancy. They fear science, hate it unless it confirms their preconceived beliefs about the world. And when it doesn't, they lie and distort to their flock.

The world, and the universe, in which we exist is an amazing place. Look at the fossils we have in museums, watch the leaves turn red and orange as autumn progresses; look to the sky at night and see the moon and the stars. Read a book about paleontology or physics. The world is full of wonder, and we do ourselves no favor by being blind to the reality of it. These purveyers of lies tell us to suspend our reason, to keep our minds closed and narrow. They fear the truth, in spite of their protestations to the contrary, when they have no need to.

See the world with open eyes. You won't regret it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...