Evolutionists fear other ideas

As you may know, Answers in Genesis has opened a huge Creation Museum in Kentucky. On Ken Ham’s blog, he gives some responses by people at the University of Cincinnati.

“What I have a problem with is how the Answers in Genesis movement twists science — repeatedly taking facts out of context — in order to misrepresent what we scientists do and say. I doubt they do it with deliberate intent to mislead, but leading creation scientists do it unambiguously and quite assiduously in newsletters, blogs and even books. And given the importance of education in general — critical thinking and handling of complex information in a changing world — creation scientists cannot have a directly positive effect on folks’ understanding of science or their skill in handling and critiquing information and messages coming from various sources of authority, whether its the science lab or the pulpit.” (emphasis mine)

Isn’t this telling? If Answers in Genesis is taking facts “out of context,” it should be fairly easy to point out, and if the information that AiG is presenting is, in fact, inaccurate and involves logical fallacies, then what could be a better resource for teaching critical thinking? Students of the university should be taken to the museum in busloads to learn how to think critically. But alas, evolutionists are not concerned for people’s critical thinking skills, they are afraid of people exercising them. Evolution cannot stand up to criticism, and when both theories are presented side by side people can instinctively see which one better fits with the evidence.

Be Sociable, Share!

16 Responses to “Evolutionists fear other ideas”

  1. Bill says:

    Critical Thinking:
    How can just two of every animal propogate the species? Mom and dad have babies and then what? Incest? If there are just two animals left in a species it is doomed.

    Every summer the snow melts in Greenland. Every winter it freezes again and produces layers like tree rings. There are well over 100,000 of them. Proving the earth is at least 100,000 years old.

    Evolution cannot stand up to criticism??? Evolution is a well accepted scientific theory. Evololution is just a theory? So is the theory of elctro-magnatism, does you TV work? There are disagreements about the mechanics of evolution among scientist. But this is the nature of science. Science gets closer and closer to the truth by constantly questioning assumptions. Creationist assume they know all and then try to twist God’s reality to their version.

    Creationism is just one creation myth among thousands. Why do you think your version is right? Why do you think the bible is in any way special? Researh the history of the bible and you will see that it is just a collection of stories molded for the politics of the time it was written.

    God has given you a wonderful world to enjoy. Why would you close your eyes to it. If I were God I would be so upset that you creationist ignore the universe I created and assume youknow all.

  2. casey says:

    First of all, thank you for commenting. Let me start off with a story. A creationist was once in a debate with some evolutionists, and they brought up the same point you made about two of every animal propagating the species. Specifically, the comment was about dogs. They said, “You really believe that all the varieties of dog that we have today came from two dogs just thousands of years ago?” The creationist responded, “Yes, and you believe they came from a rock!” This is referring, of course, to the fact that evolutionists believe that life arose from non-living materials. For a further discussion about this issue, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

    As for your Greenland comment,
    …creationists view both the Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets as products of a post-Flood rapid Ice Age, plus additional ice added after the Ice Age (Oard, 1990). In this model, annual layers would be very thick in the lower portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet (the Ice Age portion determined by the oxygen isotope ratio) with decreasing annual layer thickness higher up in the ice sheet. Since the Ice Age ended about 4000 years ago, the compression of the ice sheet has been much less than uniformitarian scientists believe, but still substantial (Vardiman, 1993).

    You can’t claim that the layers were always the same thickness unless you were there to verify it. To do so is to ascribe to the position of uniformitarianism, which has been widely discredited. If, for the sake of argument, there was a major catastrophe in the past, these layers would not be the same thickness.

    I never said “evolution is just a theory.” You’re putting words into my mouth. In other words, you’re attacking a straw man. That’s a logical fallacy.

    Creationists don’t assume they know everything. We believe God created the universe, and it is up to us to discover the mechanisms. Evolution is one possibility, but it doesn’t hold water.

  3. einzige says:

    Pot, meet Kettle.

    Here’s a straw man of your own: “[Evolutionary biologists] believe [dogs] came from a rock.”

    Show me any evolutionary biologist who makes such an absurd claim. You won’t find one.

  4. casey says:

    Evolution requires that life came from non-life at one point. The statement may be simplistic, but ultimately that is what evolutionists believe.

  5. einzige says:

    That assumes that the distinction between “life” and “non-life” is a clear one. A debatable point, certainly. Is a virus “alive” – or do you not believe in viruses, seeing as how they’re not mentioned in the Bible? Is DNA “alive” – or is that something else that perhaps you don’t believe in?

  6. casey says:

    If the distinction is not clear, why take issue with the statement that “dogs came from a rock”? You seem to be moving the goal posts. A virus is not alive. It makes copies of itself by attaching itself to a truly living cell. It does not have the ability to replicate on its own. DNA is a chemical substance and is not capable of replicating itself, either.

  7. John Brolley says:

    The professor whose quote you use (and whose opinion you attempt to savage), did indeed visit the AiG museum in person — twice, I believe. His comments do not stem from ignorance or fear. He saw your presentation and drew his conclusions, which is what scientists do. With that in mind, I have not noticed any representatives of AiG attending local university lectures on biology, chemistry, or anthropology — of if they have, they have offered no public questions or comments on those lectures.

  8. casey says:

    That’s an odd request to make. Why would they attend lectures after they’ve already finished their schooling? The logical thing would be to ask why they don’t attend secular museums–which I assume they do. Why is it that so many evolutionists tried to use lawsuits and whatnot to prevent AiG from building the museum in the first place? It certainly sounds like fear to me.

    If the professor in question did visit the museum, great. My issue is that evolutionists like to try to silence opposition. The creationists used to do this when they were in charge, and evolutionists fault them for it. Now that the tables are turned I guess censorship is fine again.

  9. Dan King says:

    I love this whole discussion, but what frustrates me most is the fact that creation is ridiculed, while the theory (yes, even Darwin called it a theory, and actually did not believe that it could really stand) of evolution is taught as fact. Religion aside, scientifically, evolution cannot happen in the scale that we would have to experience it in the world that we know today.

    I would like evolutionists to answer a few things for me:
    (1) Spontaneous generation – science has NEVER been able to create life out of non-life. Show me one example of this actually happening.
    (2) Entropy (second LAW of thermodynamics) – this states that things deteriorate over time, while evolution requires that rather than dispersing, that they come together and get stronger. So the very idea of evolution goes against this scientific law. Explain exactly how all of nature could defy this scientific law.
    (3) Transitional species – Darwin pointed out that the fossil record would have to show thousands of “in-between” animals. To date, not one “missing link” has ever been found, especially when moving from one species to another. Show me one transitional species.
    (4) Sex – If we started as a single-sex organism that reporoduced on it’s own, then what evolutionary benefit would tehre be in requiring two sexes to reproduce? In addition to that, it would have taken millions of years for each sex to evolve separately. In this case, how then could either survive without the other being fully evolved. In order for this to work both sexes would have had to instantly change and realize that they required each other all within a single lifetime (which is not very long).

    I could go on for a while, but even science which has discoverd the complexity of the human genome, and the age of the universe (by finding it’s boundary), cannot create even the human eye. Statistically, science would rule it impossible for even an eyeball to evolve because there would not be enough time for the correct mutations to occur.

    The worst part is that our public schools are teaching this junk. If anyone who reads this went to college and walked away as an evolutionist, I would ask for your money back! But if you still choose to believe that unsubstantiated myth, then I’ve got some property in Florida that I want to sell you…

    Evolutionists just fight so hard, because there is no other alternative, except…. :-)

  10. casey says:

    Hi Dan,

    Thanks for coming to my defense. :)

    Evolution is “only” a theory, but so are a lot of other widely held beliefs like certain theories of gravity. Gotta be careful with that one.

    As for thermodynamics, evolutionists claim that open systems are an exception. This isn’t true, but you have to be careful with this one, too.

    They also have quite a long list of transitional species, since they believe that everything evolves, everything is, in effect, a transitional species.

    I don’t know what their responses will be to the other issues you brought up, so let’s wait and see. :)

  11. John Brolley says:

    It is not at all an odd request — every university holds public lectures that are attended by citizens beyond the academic community, including those who have “finished their schooling” at the undergraduate or graduate level.

    Moreover, the scholar in question did not for one moment suggest that AiG or creationists in general be censored in any way, and he certainly did not mention any lawsuits. He simply offered an opinion on the material he observed at the museum and his perception of its usefulness. No fear involved.

  12. einzige says:

    Re: #6…

    If the distinction is not clear, why take issue with the statement that “dogs came from a rock”?

    Non sequitur. Another logical fallacy. I thought this was a “critical thinking” blog (well, actually, I didn’t think that, but given its title…).

    You seem to be moving the goal posts.

    No, I’m just pointing out that things exist which don’t easily fit into the categories of “life” versus “non-life”.

  13. casey says:


    I see. I didn’t realize there were such lectures available. I can’t speak for AiG staff. I’m not affiliated with them in any way. FYI AiG does public lectures, too. The scholar in question may not be calling for censorship, but he did specifically say, “creation scientists cannot have a directly positive effect on folks’ understanding of science…” That is either the height of arrogance or abject fear (come to think of it, maybe it is just arrogance). I’m also tired of evolutionists claiming that creationists “twist science” or “take facts out of context” just because they draw different conclusions than their evolutionist counterparts. Creationists do bring something to the table, and it’s quite frustrating that evolutionists will not admit shortcomings in their theory.

  14. casey says:


    So it’s the word “rock” that you are taking issue with, correct? Okay, how about “evolutionists believe that life arose out of gas and dust which formed clouds that later collapsed and formed a rock (the Earth).” According to my college textbook (perhaps outdated now) lightning struck a pool of chemicals on the rocky surface which contained some amino acids or something and, poof! the first living cell was born. Whether you want to call it a “rock” or not, according to the theory of evolution, there was no life before this. These gases and whatnot broke down to form chemicals and amino acids and all that good stuff which eventually came together to form the first living cell. Ultimately life arose from gases and dust (the “rock” to which the creationist referred). Please correct me if I’m wrong.

  15. alliekidd says:

    okay, i’m really enjoying reading everyone comments, evolutionist do tend to be quite forthright and self righteous these days which does undoutably discredit their arguments, but i must say ,raised to believe in genisis, their attitude does little to discredit darwins theory itself (for me personally at least)
    I find it stange that you can state that variation animal species (dog etc) came from after the flood, this is after eden so god has done his creating? (my bible knowledge is a little rusty, as is my spelling) how did this variation come about other than through the mutation of genes, which is how evolution claims it happens. lets say a few thousand years for all the species to create this wonderful variation, thats a long way in just 4000 – 6000 years which shows a very productive system. Put that into context of 200 million years when the fossil record begins.
    It won’t be untill both sides (evolutionist’s and creationists) work together as what they claim to be scientist, searching for truth together and conduct their research in an unbiased manner that either theory can be disproved/proved, hey maybe they will ‘create’ a theory that has ‘evolved’ from both arguments!

  16. casey says:

    Hi alliekidd,

    Yes, I would say that variation in species occurred after the flood (as well as before it). The Bible says that God created animals after “their kind.” That leaves room for a great deal of variation. Some variation would have come about through mutation, but certainly not all or even most. I’m taller than my mother and father and have a different hair color, but that doesn’t mean I’m a mutant. Creationists do not deny that mutations affect the gene pool. They simply question whether mutations plus natural selection could produce the kinds of changes necessary for molecule-to-man evolution. If we go by what is observed today, then the answer is a resounding “no.”