AiG’s “Top 10 Myths About Creation” (And then 10 Facts About AiG) (Myths 5-1) (Part 2)

Yesterday I began to share a recent post by Answers in Genesis, entitled, “Top 10 Myths About Creation.” Yesterday was myths 10-6. Today we have myths 5-1. Enjoy…

Myth #5: Creationists are Anti-Science: Of course that’s not true, the writer states. But that’s evolutionists for you: they just vilify creationists and try to make it sound like they’re still living in the Dark Ages! No, the writer insists, creationists love science because they love God, and science gives us a glimpse into God’s magnificent handiwork. But what creationists do attack is any framework that denies God’s authority and place as Creator.

And I say…actually, young earth creationists really are anti-science. They deny the findings and conclusions of biology, geology, astronomy, genetics…need I go on? They reject those findings by claiming there’s a spiritual war going on…so that when the study of the human genome conclusively proves there is no way the entire human race could have descended from a single couple a mere 6,000 years ago—young earth creationists reject it as an attempt to rebel against God and tell people they’re just animals, and thus encourage immorality. Does that sound like a well-reasoned scientific challenge to the findings in genetics? Or does that sound, well, rather unscientific and paranoid?

Myth #4: There’s No Evidence for Creation: the writer reminds us that there is evidence for creation everywhere…you’re living in it! The problem is that evolutionists claim that this is all a product of blind natural forces, and nothing else—no supernatural involvement (or God) at all. Besides, no evidence is objective—it’s all a matter of how you interpret the evidence. Therefore, evolutionists look at the Grand Canyon and say, “The layers of rock prove millions of years!” but creationists say, “No, they prove a global flood, 4,000 years ago!” The evidence, the writer argues, “must be fitted into the overall picture we have of how things work.”

And I say…see my comments from Myth #6. But let me add this—the writer’s comments give the impression that evolution denies the existence of God. No—evolution simply is a description of the natural processes that have developed the varieties of life here on earth. For people who already believe there is no God, they try to argue that evolution disproves God, but they’re simply wrong. Evolutionary theory no more disproves God than instructions to putting together a bike disproves Schwinn.

The writer’s last comments regarding interpretation of evidence is very telling as well. Instead of studying the evidence and allowing it to shape one’s overall understanding of the natural world, young earth creationists argue that Genesis 1-11 already tells us everything about the “overall picture,” therefore they feel justified to make the evidence fit their pre-conceived conclusions. And that goes back to Myth #5—right there, that shows young earth creationists are anti-science.

Myth #3: Creationists Deny the Laws of Nature: quite to the contrary, creationists see the laws of nature as evidence of God’s sustaining hand in the universe. The laws of nature do not change because God doesn’t change. But, the laws of nature alone are not sufficient to produce life. In addition, creationists don’t think the evolutionary idea of common descent is a natural law.

And I say…this is a fun one. To the point, yes they do. The writer can claim young earth creationists don’t believe the laws of nature change, but articles from AiG scream otherwise. How can light in the universe be from millions of light years from here, if the universe is only 6,000 years old? Answer: the speed of light really isn’t constant in a vacuum! We have no evidence for this, but it must be the case because…see Myth #4—we have to fit the evidence into our preconceived conclusion of the universe, based on our assumption that Genesis 1-11 is God’s history/science book of the universe!

Myth #2: Creationists Ignore the Evidence for Evolution: evolutionists claim creationists either cherry-pick some evidence to dispute, or ignore other evidence. The writer disagrees. The evidence isn’t the problem: it’s the conclusions evolutionists come to that is the problem. The writer says, “Creationists pick out the hard facts and expose the parts that are opinion or based on assumptions. This is not ignoring what we don’t like; it’s separating the wheat from the chaff.”

And I say…despite what the writer claims, young earth creationists really do cherry-pick and ignore the evidence. Just look at how they argue that the human genome “proves” young earth creationism because it proves all human beings are of one race, contrary to what many in the 19th and early 20th century claimed. Well great…only one problem: that same study of the human genome also shows that the human race did not descend from a single couple, 6,000 years ago.

So what’s going on here? Young earth creationists are cherry-picking the evidence from the human genome, and are ignoring the evidence that contradicts their claims. And, for that matter, they dishonestly try to argue that it was evolutionary theory itself that was racist. But here’s the thing, in the 19th century, the people why tried to claim evolution “proved” there were different races were the same people who tried to lift passages from the Bible out of context to “prove” there were different races. The point is simple: just because someone might distort evolution or the Bible, you don’t blame evolution or the Bible—you call them on their distortions.

Myth #1: Creationists Want Creationism Taught in Public Schools and Evolution Out: not true, says the writer. All Answers in Genesis wants is for teachers to have the freedom to present the creation view if they so choose. As far as evolution goes, Answers in Genesis thinks Christians should understand the basic tenants of evolution, so that they will be more effective in their witness.

And I say…this may be true. And actually, it would be something I’d like to see. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. After all, for about five years in my Senior Worldview class at a Christian high school, I had a “Darwin Unit,” in which I laid out all the views and had the students investigate and discuss them. And you know what happened? It became pretty clear that young earth creationism wasn’t convincing. I think YEC thrives precisely because it isn’t put side by side evolutionary theory. It thrives because in far too many Christian schools, the basic tenants of evolution aren’t presented—what is presented is the distortions from groups like AiG.

Conclusion
After researching and writing about young earth creationism for the past two years, I have to say that after awhile it gets pretty tedious—it’s the same talking points over and over again, just said in slightly different ways. It is important, though, for Christians to be aware of not only what exactly groups like AiG claim, but also how they, to put it kindly, fudge the facts and issues. Nobody in the scientific or biblical academic fields may take him seriously, but the fact is, within day to day Evangelicalism, he wields considerable influence. If you find yourself having questions about AiG and young earth creationism, or trying to talk to someone who has unquestionably accepted Ken Ham’s claims, I hope that posts like this help you clarify the issues so that you can be better prepared to discuss them yourself.

4 Comments

    1. I sure hope so…that would make my year! I figure if enough bloggers I know plug it, it might get enough circulation to get Ham to notice it. We’ll see!

        1. Well, I’m self-publishing it, so you’ll be able to get it through amazon.com or createspace.com. It will also be available to bookstores, but I would think you’d have to specially ask for it. Like I said, hopefully enough people who read my blog will post it on their blogs, facebook pages, and tell their friends about it. If it spreads at the grassroots level enough, maybe it will get picked up for even wider distribution.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.