Science once believed the earth was flat.
Only if one employs the equivocation fallacy. And even millennial before the development of the scientific method and modern science, ancient philosophers---and a great many sailors, sky-watchers, and others---knew that the earth wasn't flat. They even estimated its circumference with reasonable accuracy.
Young Earth Creationists such as Ken Ham often use bogus arguments about what "science" allegedly claimed in the past. Their goal is to suggest to a gullible, scientific-illiterate general public that science is unreliable and easily leads to error. But such arguments are based on The Equivocation Fallacy.
Ham regularly confuses the ancient definition of SCIENTIA (Latin for "knowledge") with modern science and the scientific method, which only began to become the standard in the 16th century or so. Before then, "science" was simply whatever some "expert" claimed about a given topic. Empiricism and modern science had multiple pioneers including Roger Bacon and Paracelsus.
So when Ham tries to ridicule modern science by associating it with TRADITIONS of the ancient world which were never put to the test experimentally, nor by rigorous attempts at falsification, he demonstrates EITHER his lack of basic knowledge about science OR his dishonesty about the facts. Readers can make their own decisions about that question. (Indeed, it was my frustration with this kind of all-too-common ignoring of facts and too many examples of flagrant dishonesty which led me out of the "creation science" camp. God convicted me of my quiet complicity---as a YEC speaker/debater---in misleading a gullible, vulnerable public which was ill-informed about both God's Bible and God's Creation (i.e. Science.)
My personal favorite of the many equivocation fallacies promoted by Ham and company at Answers in Genesis is their rant about "Science killed George Washington when doctors treated him with blood-letting." But what they falsely attribute to modern science (in their attempt to apply the guilt-by-association debate tactic) is actually a self-indictment based on their confusing TRADITION with science. Blood-letting was an ancient tradition based on various superstitions which had absolutely no relation to the scientific method. Blaming Washington's death on modern science is as silly as it is outrageous.
Galen of Pergamon, the famed physician of the 2nd century A.D., recommended blood-letting and both Muslim and Christian scholars (and the Church itself!) preserved and promoted many of his traditional practices.
Tradition is a powerful force and even some of the most destructive Christian traditions can take centuries to eliminate. (We humans tend to cling to our favorite traditions.) The practice continued into the 18th century, including among many poorly trained doctors in the American colonies. (Where scientific knowledge is lacking, tradition tends to reign---just as happens today.) Blood-letting was never "science" under the modern definition.
It was simply a tradition. It was dogma without factual foundations.
So when Ken Ham tries to taint modern science by blaming the foolishness of blood-letting on "blind trust in science", he not only exhibits his ignorance. He is doing what he often does:
He promotes cherished TRADITIONS and even popular ancient myths---as well as blind, man-made DOGMA---while ignoring the scientific evidence, Biblical evidence, and historical facts. He's built a multi-million dollar empire and a lucrative career on such tactics.
Whenever ill-informed "creation science" fans of Answers in Genesis naively assume that they are being told the truth---and simply repeat Ham's fallacies and illogical claims---they reinforce the public's false, but understandable, perception that Christians always confuse traditional dogma with facts.
Christ-followers would do well to denounce such folly which unnecessarily tends to discredit the Bible. The Bible shouldn't be blamed for the ignorant ideas of some who misuse it.
.
.
?
