Anorak | Evolution under attack: Creationist angers Lord God Almighty

Evolution under attack: Creationist angers Lord God Almighty

by | 28th, August 2013

5589136 Evolution under attack: Creationist angers Lord God Almighty

THE phrase “creation scientist” is as oxymoronic as “athletic quadriplegic” or “Nazi racial-equality advocate”– if the first part applies to you then the second by definition cannot. And Ken Ham, who heads the Answers in Genesis foundation and Kentucky’s Creation Museum (thus making him one of America’s foremost “creation scientists”), basically admitted as much last week in a radio ad pointing out that godless concepts like logic and science cannot prove the alleged falsehood of evolution; only unquestioning religious faith does that.

“We have solid proof in our hands that evolution is a lie: the Bible,” Ham explained. “You see, we can’t depend solely on our reasoning ability to convince skeptics. We present the evidence and do the best we can to convince people the truth of God by always pointing them to the Bible.”

A couple days after Ham said this to his followers, a Creation Museum employee was hospitalized following a lightning strike, which makes perfect sense according to the Creationist worldview because if Ken Ham’s God created humanity then He chose to give us such gifts as intelligence and reasoning ability, and when Someone gives you a lovely gift and you choose to crap all over it then of course that Someone will take offence, especially someone as testy and short-tempered as the Old Testament God.

Although Creation Science is most prevalent in America (to the point where would-be politicos seeking a career in the Republican Party dare not express belief in evolution for fear of alienating their voting base), it’s also infected a number of Britons who ought to know better. Like Paul Taylor, whose 2007 essay “Can Creation Models Be Wrong?” is still available on the Answers in Genesis site, explaining why the Bible is more trustworthy than any mere science book:

“Skeptics often claim, ‘The Bible is not a science textbook.’ This, of course, is true—because science textbooks change every year, whereas the Bible is the unchanging Word of God—the God who cannot lie.”

God might not lie but he does contradict himself; the first two chapters of Genesis contain two completely different creation stories. Answers in Genesis appears to favor the Chapter One creation narrative, where God made the first man and woman simultaneously, over the Chapter Two version where God made the first man, put him to sleep, extracted one of his ribs and built a woman out of it.

Most importantly (according to the AIG folks), that Chapter One narrative is to be taken literally; attempts to reconcile scientific evidence with the Bible by interpreting the latter as an allegory are utterly unacceptable. As Answers in Genesis pointed out long before Ham released his ham-handed radio advert:

“It is important to note that the order of events listed [in Genesis] is not compatible with current secular thought about the origin of the universe and life and, thus, precludes any attempt to allegorize the text to fit unbiblical ideas. For example, evolutionism posits that plants did not appear until after the sun coalesced and the first life appeared. However, the biblical account is quite clear that God created plants even before He made the sun.”

And the likes of Ken Ham honestly think this proves plants and the planet on which they grow both existed before the sun. May lightning strike me stupid if I’m lying.

Photo: Doctor Monty White, a lead figure in the creationism and intelligent design movement in Britain, looks at a map inside his warehouse in Leicester, England, Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2008, which is marked in places where his group has spoken in churches across the country. The Doctor is the head of a UK group called ‘Answers in Genesis’, which has links to a prominent US group of the same name, and sells DVD’s pamphlets and books promoting the movement. (AP Photo/Simon Dawson).

Posted: 28th, August 2013 | In: News Comment (1) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink