Sundry Sunday: Answers in Genesis Explains Science

Ken Ham is a busy, busy man. When he is not debating scientists on his turf, trying to raise money and hiring like-minded people to build a theme park based on a catastrophe of global proportions (fun!), and encouraging people to visit the Creation Museum, he writes on his no-comments-allowed blog.

This week, Mr Ham wants to remind his readers that there is a difference between Observational Science and Origins Science. The former is the one that is observable, testable, repeatable. The latter is different because it deals with historical events, things that are not observable, testable or repeatable. He accuses mainstream science of removing the distinction in order to make the claim that since Creationists reject evolution, Creationists therefore reject science. Ken Ham would like his readers to know that Creationists love science — they just reject the humanistic, man-made assumptions about man’s origins.

So when people claim that creationists deny science, what they’ve done is a bait-and-switch. They call their religion of naturalism and the observational evidence both “science” and then, because creationists reject their religion, they claim that we reject science!

The level of hubris displayed here is unbelievable. They have created an arbitrary dichotomy: observational science and origins science. I have never heard of this distinction from mainstream sources, only from Creationist sources. Creationists acknowledge that since they make conclusions based on their interpretation of the Bible — it is motivated by religious beliefs — that therefore mainstream scientists are also motivated by religion, namely, the religion of naturalism.

…if you start with God’s Word—which was written by the only One who was actually there through history!—you will interpret the evidence of the present through the lens of a universe brought into existence by an all powerful God, a perfect world marred by sin, and young earth that was drastically changed by a global Flood a few thousand years ago.

What more do we need?

This cartoon sums it up nicely.

Creationist Cartoon




About yewnique

I am a Malaysian-born woman who is married to an Australian and now live in Melbourne, Australia. I am a mother to four children. I home school. I like reading, writing, and cooking -- not necessarily in that order. I care about grammar and spelling, but am nonchalant about the Oxford Comma. I try to follow Christ's teachings.

Posted on Sunday, January 11th, 2015, in Answers in Genesis, Creation Scientists, Creation vs Evolution, Education, Evolution, FAIL!, History, Misconceptions, Science, Sundry Sunday, Young Earth Creationism. Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. Looks like the discussion is happening on my Facebook page:


  2. It’s funny to me because every observation is historical. Even watching something with your own eyes directly has to account for the amount of time it takes light to travel from the object your eyes are looking at to your eye, be recorded, and for that data to be received and interpreted by your brain.


  3. hktelemacher, it’s good to ‘see’ you again! Happy new year to you!

    Would love your input over on Facebook. It’s set to Public so anyone can post comments.


  4. Ugh, I dunno, on Facebook there’s just waves and waves of dumb. The pervasiveness of Christianity in contemporary Western culture (Facebook obviously being global but a product itself on the West) has few demonstrative equals to Facebook, and it just brings out the worst types of saccharine, anti-intellectual religious me-too-ism.

    Take Bill. Everything from his right-wing hijacking of solidarity with Iraqi Christians using a profile pic of the “nun” Arabic character to his old and tired denial of macroevolution as if archaeology and genetics is just some kind of toddler-in-sandbox guesswork just reeks of the isolated social bubble modern data algorithms construct.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m on there, mostly to share pictures of the kiddos with close friends and family, stay in tougch with remote friends . . . but as a platform for conveying fact and helping pull people out of their comfort zone? You’d have better luck emptying the ocean with a tea cup.


  5. Fair enough. I prefer comments to be here on the blog, but most people don’t know about new posts unless I tell them through Facebook. And then they comment on Facebook.

    I don’t think Facebook is a good platform for a good discussion. There are Facebook Groups and those are a bit better. But someone’s page? Not really.


  6. Well, there you go. I scared everyone off.


Go ahead. Tell me your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: