A few days ago, I came across a tweet by Answers in Genesis that was for an article that could be found on their website. The article was entitled, “Top 10 Myths About Creation.” I clicked on the link and read the article, and was rather perplexed. As with most articles with AiG, a first reading tends to give that feeling of perplexity—you know what you read, but despite their arguments, something just does not seem right. Whenever you come across anything that gives you that feeling, be it from AiG, any political campaign, or the Mormons, that’s when you should take some time, re-read it, and carefully articulate just what doesn’t seem right. If nothing else, it’s a good learning experience…and can be highly entertaining.
And so, what follows are my reactions to AiG’s “Top Ten” list….
Myth #10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change: the writer acknowledges that before Darwin, there were some Christians who believed in the fixity of species, but now that obviously is not the case, thanks to Darwin. Clearly creationists believe natural selection happens and species do, in fact, change. But, what creationists also believe is that species change only within the original kind God created 6,000 years ago. That, the writer emphasizes, is the difference.
And I say…although it is good to know that creationists do not hold to the idea of the fixity of species, one shouldn’t overlook the second part of what is being said here: they believe the variety of species we have today came from original “kinds” God created a mere 6,000 years ago. But even that is misleading, for they believe all modern species came from the original “kinds” that came out of Noah’s Ark a mere 4,000 years ago. I’ve written on the impossibility of that much variety happening within such a short period of time, as has Joel Duff on his blog, Naturalis Historia. Essentially, they are admitting that to deny natural selection would be silly, but then they put forth their own claim, which is outright impossible and silly in and of itself—unless, of course you believe that natural selection happens so fast that beagles could give birth to wolves, that would then give birth to huskies, that would give birth to…you get the idea. That’s the kind of natural selection that would have to happen to get from an original 1,000 kinds to the over 500,000 species of land animal in the span of 4,000 years.
Myth #9: Intelligent Design Is Creationism: contrary to what evolutionists claim, the writer insists that the Intelligent Design Movement is not a “Trojan horse” attempt to smuggle creationism into public school science classrooms. Creationists start with the assumption that the Bible is God’s infallible Word, and therefore the earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago. The IDM, on the other hand, isn’t even necessarily Christian. It doesn’t start with the Bible, and it tries to argue that the design in nature points to an “intelligent designer,” but that “intelligent designer” could be anything, not necessarily the God of the Bible.
And I say…is yes, this is basically true. ID is not the exact same thing as creationism…but it’s pretty clear they share a common ancestor! The charge that ID is a Trojan horse is actually true. It was proven in the 2004 court case in Dover, Pennsylvania. Certain board members had tried to push ID science curriculum into public schools, and tried to argue that it was real science, and not creationism. Well, it turned out that the ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, had a little surprise in its past. It was originally a textbook for Creation Science, but had been updated after a key court case back in 1987 that said Creationism couldn’t be taught in public schools.
In the original draft, “Creation” was defined as this: “Creation means various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.” In the draft that was updated immediately after the 1987 court case, things were changed, but only a bit: “Intelligent Design means various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”
Quite literally, all they did was substitute “Intelligent Design” for “Creation”–that’s it. Not only that, but there were other revisions that were made in haste. In one instance, the word “creationists” was substituted with “design proponents,” but somehow the word “creationists” wasn’t deleted, and what is actually seen in the draft is “cdesign proponentsists”–the veritable “missing link” that proved Intelligent Design was nothing more than Creationism repackaged.
Nova had a special on the court case, entitled: “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.” You can click on the link and watch in on youtube. This specific scene starts around the 1 hour, 25 minute mark.
Myth #8: The Bible is not a Science Textbook: I’ll just quote the first part: “The Bible isn’t a science textbook in the sense that it describes exactly how the laws of the universe function, but it does make a number of statements that touch upon scientific principles. And what it does touch on is factually accurate.” The writer goes on to say that the Bible gives the true history of the universe, therefore true science must begin with the Bible (namely, assuming that Genesis 1-11 is “the true history of the universe”…and therefore can be deemed scientifically reliable).
And I say…what an incredible example of double-speak! “The Bible isn’t a science textbook, but it does talk about science, and where it does, it’s accurate.” Ken Ham has said elsewhere that of course the Bible isn’t a science textbook, because science textbooks always have to be updated, based on new information scientists discover; but the Bible was written by God, so it doesn’t need to change, because it’s already true and accurate…about science! Of course, if they were consistent with this claim, they’d have to insist on a geocentric universe, and disavow the notion of sperm and eggs. What this really boils down to is this: “We believe Genesis 1-11 is history and science, because we believe Genesis 1-11 is history and science.”
Myth #7: Creationists Have a Narrow/Literal View of the Bible: the writer says this is only partially true. He insists that creationists believe the Bible was written by God, and is therefore clear and accurate. At the same time, there are a variety of writing styles in the Bible, and that has to be taken into consideration. He ends with this: “Thus, creationists approach the Bible in a straightforward fashion. We don’t take idioms or poetic descriptions literally; we see them for what they are. We also do not ignore the intent of the text to align with popular ideas or philosophies.”
And I say…this comes down to issue of proper interpretation. They admit that the Bible contains a variety of genres, but then they completely misinterpret Genesis 1-11 as history, when it clearly is not. In the case of Genesis 1-11, they do, in fact, take idioms and poetic descriptions literally. But even so far back as the early Church Father Origen (3rd century), he called people who read chapters like Genesis 2-3 literally “fools.” Simply put, creationists’ interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is bad biblical interpretation, and it flies in the face of the history of Church teaching.
Myth #6: Creation Has Been Disproven: After claiming that some evolutionists simply refuse to even debate creationists, and just declare that creation is an old idea that has been replaced by evolution, the writer says that evolution was disproven long before Darwin, when God spoke things into existence 6,000 years ago. What evolution really is doing is giving evolutionists an excuse to reject and ignore the clear signs of a Creator.
And I say…it was at this point in the article that a lightbulb went off in my head: “Creationists”—“Creation has been disproven”? Wait a minute! I think we need to make a clear distinction here: the folks at Answers in Genesis are not “creationists”—they are young earth creationists. That’s a huge difference. I am a “creationist,” in that I believe God created everything—I just don’t think everything popped into existence 6,000 years ago. What is happening here is that AiG isn’t really being honest—they’re trying to skew things a bit, and make you forget that the problem so many people have with AiG isn’t that they believe creation exists (everyone…even atheists…acknowledge there is a material world we call creation!). The problem is that they claim, contrary to all scientific evidence, that the universe is only 6,000 years old, and that all the variety of life came about from 1,000 “kinds” that came off of Noah’s Ark. And so, we should say more clearly, “Young earth creationism has been disproven.”
As for the writer’s last claim, that the real motivation of evolutionists is simply to have a reason to reject God, really? C.S. Lewis, Francis Collins, the Pope…they all acknowledge evolution—are they do that so they can “reject God”? For that matter, why should we call someone an “evolutionist”? I think evolution is convincing, but I’m no more an “evolutionist” as I am a “photosynthesizer” or a “gravatationist.”
Tomorrow, we’ll look at the top 5….
