Answers in Genesis?

[Markus6]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

An inquiry from a friend over in 'Creation & Evolution'

Answers in Genesis?

Was reminded of this by another site I frequent and I was wondering, how many people actually believe the Answers in Genesis stuff? That dinosaurs and man walked together and the earth is only 6,000 years old? I'm genuinely curious.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Thanks for your input!

 

[Benoni]

No...

Genesis is one of the most spiritual books in all of the Bible; time is not relavant.

Genesis is not a natural history book. Who knows how long ago God created man?

Way too much evidence that dinosaurs were here long before man.

 

[redghost]

I know lots of people who agree with AIG and their YEC stance.
Most that I know have graduate level degrees, a few PhDs.

The reasons are as follows:

#1) They are 100% convinced the bible teaches a recent creation and young earth. Since they are convinced that God has authoritatively
stated this, no manner of evidence from extra-biblical sources will convince them otherwise.

#2) Most are convinced that alternative interpetations of Genesis are bogus and simply attempts to appease modern naturalistic evolution world views.

#3) Most are convinced that if they change their interpretation of Genesis they will start down a slippery slope to denying other key doctrines and call into question the inerrancy of the Bible, possibly resulting in complete apostacy.

Also, some YEC groups repeatedly hammer home points 1-3 I made above so much so that even thinking of alternative views on creation can leave one wondering if they are committing a huge sin.

Been there.

In terms of % of say the american population who hold this view I have no idea. But the fact that AIG was able to finance and build the Creation Museum and they give talks all over the US and beyond will tell you that it isn't a completely fringe view and I'd say it's increasing.

 

[Mallon]

That AiG is forced to resort to circular reasoning in order to maintain their position that science is completely in line with a literal interpretation of the Bible should be enough to tip anyone off about its bogus nature. Check out what their website has to say. First, they say that scientific evidence confirms the biblical account:

When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.

Then they go on to say that any evidence that does not confirm the biblical account must be rejected a priori:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

That's just blatant dishonesty right there. This kind of trickery isn't something that Christians should be supporting.

 

[Markus6]

I think sacredsin is looking for creationist who agree with AIG. Are there any in here?

 

[redghost]

First, they say that scientific evidence confirms the biblical account:

No, they don't say that. They say that the evidence when "properly
understood" confirms their position. "Properly understood" to them
essentially means rejecting much of the scientifc consensus
on origins.

Then they go on to say that any evidence that does not confirm the biblical account must be rejected a priori:

That's just blatant dishonesty right there. This kind of trickery isn't something that Christians should be supporting.

No, it's not dishonest. They are simply saying that God's Word is true and
if anything pops up and contradicts it, whatever it is must be false.

 

[Mallon]

No, they don't say that. They say that the evidence when "properly
understood" confirms their position. "Properly understood" to them
essentially means rejecting much of the scientifc consensus
on origins.

And why do they reject scientific consensus? Because it does not confirm their pre-conconviction that Genesis must be read as a scientifically accurate account. To AiG, "properly understood" means interpreting the evidence only in the context of Young Earth Creationism. Any evidence that does not fit this model is rejected.

No, it's not dishonest. They are simply saying that God's Word is true and
if anything pops up and contradicts it, whatever it is must be false.

Truth does not necessarily equate with scientifc verifiability, as AiG assumes, however. This kind of positivism is about as far from Christian values as one can get. So it does not follow that if the Bible is true, it must be scientifically accurate. In buying into this lie, AiG has indeed forced themselves to resort to the circular reasoning I've outlined above. It's there in their own words and plain to see. According to them, the only way to "properly understand" scientific evidence is to interpret it within a YEC framework, and any evidence that does not fit this framework is rejected. It's dishonest. And it is most certainly not science.

 

[Terral]

Greetings:

The Young Earth Creation Theory is perhaps the most ridiculous interpretation these eyes have ever seen. I would sooner argue with a guy believing the earth is flat . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[redghost]

According to them, the only way to "properly understand" scientific evidence is to interpret it within a YEC framework, and any evidence that does not fit this framework is rejected. It's dishonest. And it is most certainly not science.

You are accusing brothers and sisters in Christ of dishonesty.
That is a serious charge.

They have a worldview in which the Bible plays the leading role in
making truth claims. In light of their worldview and biblical interpretation they filter everything through that worldview.

To a certain extent everybody does this. They may be wrong in their interpretation of the data (both Bible and General Revelation) but that
does NOT make them dishonest.

 

[Mallon]

You are accusing brothers and sisters in Christ of dishonesty.
That is a serious charge.

They have a worldview in which the Bible plays the leading role in
making truth claims. In light of their worldview and biblical interpretation they filter everything through that worldview.

To a certain extent everybody does this. They may be wrong in their interpretation of the data (both Bible and General Revelation) but that
does NOT make them dishonest.

Using circular reasoning to defend an otherwise indefensible position is dishonest. Even Christians are capable of being dishonest.

 

[Assyrian]

typo?

 

[Mallon]

typo?

Good catch!

 

[busterdog]

That AiG is forced to resort to circular reasoning in order to maintain their position that science is completely in line with a literal interpretation of the Bible should be enough to tip anyone off about its bogus nature. Check out what their website has to say. First, they say that scientific evidence confirms the biblical account:

Then they go on to say that any evidence that does not confirm the biblical account must be rejected a priori:

That's just blatant dishonesty right there. This kind of trickery isn't something that Christians should be supporting.

What's wrong with a priori's?

 

[busterdog]

You are accusing brothers and sisters in Christ of dishonesty.
That is a serious charge.

They have a worldview in which the Bible plays the leading role in
making truth claims. In light of their worldview and biblical interpretation they filter everything through that worldview.

To a certain extent everybody does this. They may be wrong in their interpretation of the data (both Bible and General Revelation) but that
does NOT make them dishonest.

You have to serve somebody .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnC6B1AgMyw

 

[Assyrian]

What's wrong with a priori's?

Nothing wrong with a prioris. It is when you dress religious a prioris as science and flog them to people as real science, or claim that 'science' supports your religious views when the 'science' is simply your religious a priori dressed up.

 

[Mallon]

What's wrong with a priori's?

Nothing. They may serve well as working hypotheses and help to explore new territory in a different light. However, these assumptions must be abandoned when they can no longer account for mounting evidence. Biblical concordism is an a priori assumption that no longer holds up in the face of evidence. It needs to be abandoned.

 

[Melethiel]

I'll just copy a post I made in another part of the forum (so sorry in advance if some parts are out of context):

If that were the case, the universe would look a lot different. My stance is, if you want to hold to a young earth for theological reasons - great. "God did it" is a perfectly viable explanation.

Just, PLEASE, don't go trying to defend a young earth using science. It makes you ("you" used in a general sense here) look silly. I've read plenty of "scientific" defenses of young earth by "professional creationists," and even with my undergrad knowledge of science and what I've gleaned skimming journal articles, they're quite simply laughable. (btw, "shooting away from you faster than the speed of light" is not an entirely accurate depiction of the Big Bang theory. That makes it sound more like an explosion, while the Big Bang theory depicts an expansion of the fabric of spacetime itself.)

Stick to the theology. Lutherans are good at that. The best cases I've heard against OEC/TE are not scientific in nature, but theological. If you're going to go lambasting "man-made science", don't use science to try to prove your point. It defeats the purpose.

 

[busterdog]

Nothing wrong with a prioris. It is when you dress religious a prioris as science and flog them to people as real science, or claim that 'science' supports your religious views when the 'science' is simply your religious a priori dressed up.

Its a fair cop.

Is there another way to do science?

 

[busterdog]

I'll just copy a post I made in another part of the forum (so sorry in advance if some parts are out of context):

And yet Darwinism is giving up on randomness. The Christian a priori successfully predicted how that data would turn out. That is a test of a viable theory for many?

Now physics is having trouble with physical constants. Again, a creationists a priori and we beat the physicists to the punch.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=inconstant-constants

In recent years, however, the status of the constants has grown more muddled, not less. Researchers have found that the best candidate for a theory of everything, the variant of string theory called M-theory, is self-consistent only if the universe has more than four dimensions of space and time--as many as seven more. One implication is that the constants we observe may not, in fact, be the truly fundamental ones. Those live in the full higher-dimensional space, and we see only their three-dimensional "shadows."

It is hard not to be smug.

 

[sfodz]

That AiG is forced to resort to circular reasoning in order to maintain their position that science is completely in line with a literal interpretation of the Bible should be enough to tip anyone off about its bogus nature. Check out what their website has to say. First, they say that scientific evidence confirms the biblical account:

Then they go on to say that any evidence that does not confirm the biblical account must be rejected a priori:

That's just blatant dishonesty right there. This kind of trickery isn't something that Christians should be supporting.

I think that you missed a key word: "interpretation". They are not saying that they reject the evidence itself, but that the interpretation of the evidence, if contrary with the Bible, is mistaken or flawed, and rather than simply dismiss it as that they will seek to explain why that particular interpretation is flawed (e.g. point out some fallible assumptions) and then offer up an interpretation that explains the evidence within a biblical framework. Hardly dishonest and well within the scientific approach to things: point out flaws in a theory and present a new one that seeks to explain it.

An brief and basic example of this may be the light time problem, for instance. A common interpetation of the evidence is that since light travels at a constant speed and some of the stars are millions and billions of light years (a measure of the distance light can travel within a year) away, then it must have taken the light millions and billions of years to get here. Obviously, this interpretation conflicts with a literal understanding of Genesis, which says that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old. They don't ignore the problem or say that the measurements are wrong or whatever, rather, they come up with new theories or approaches to explain how it is possible that the light from distant stars can reach us in a young universe, Dr Humphreys' approach (Humphreys, 2002) which seems to be a plausible explanation, though further work will probably need to be done.

That, for instance, is the difference between rejecting the evidence and rejecting an interpretation of the evidence. Evolutionists do the same thing: they will reject creationist interpretations of the evidence and explain it within their framework. It isn't deceitful or dishonest ... it's just how they interpret the evidence is influenced largely by their underlying belief systems. At least Answers In Genesis is up front and honest about their bias and presuppositions.

An atheist could never, by definition, accept and interpretation of the evidence that leads him to conclude that Noah's flood actually happened, because then he'd have to accept that God exists and that he'd be held accountable to Him for his life, so he'd point out possible flaws in the creationist arguments and/or explain how it is consistent with evolutionary thinking, an example may be their interpretations of the rocks and the fresh feldspar in Uluru or Clark and Caswell's attempts to reconcile evolutionary model with the lack of observed third stage supernovas.

As such, I personally believe it is dishonest (either ignorantly or otherwise) to claim that Answers In Genesis are intentionally any more dishonest than evolutionary organisations like Talk Origins, particularly without specific examples.

References:
Humphreys, R. (2002). Starlight And Time: Solving The Puzzle Of Distant Starlight In A Young Universe. Master Books: Green Forest, AR.