Nobody ever thinks to themselves, “I believe in things that are simply not scientific or true”, but rather we all hold positions that we are sure are correct. If this is indeed the case, then why is there a prevailing confidence in some minds regarding ideas and thoughts that have been truly discredited? … now that actually is rather an interesting topic to ponder over for a bit
So let’s put on an environment suit so that we can carry on breathing as we briefly dip into a rather alien environment, namely the latest blog posting from Ken Ham, the guy in charge of Answers in Genesis (That is a Wikipedia link, not them) and who also runs the infamous Creation “Museum” (Yes, I know, he calls it that, and yes it is actually an abuse of the word “museum”, a word that normally describes a place that exhibits items of either historical or scientific interest).
Now first, put your coffee down, if you don’t, you risk splattering it all over your laptop. OK, here we go, 2nd paragraph within his blog is where he is talking about science ...
The author of the study, Joshua Ambrosius, does what many evolutionists (such as Bill Nye) do when he wrongfully equates science with climate change and evolution
Say what!
OK, so how exactly does that work?
Creationists are not against science! We love science. What we are against are the worldview-based interpretations of the evidence.
… except of course it does not work like that. The thinking is perhaps akin to pondering the thought that taking a speech in say Russian and then having it translated by several people into different English versions, ends up with his being the supposedly only correct one because he has the only dictionary (bible). Now my intention is not to rip this thinking apart, but rather to illustrate how humans will rationalise utterly absurd ideas. Such thinking will not make sense to those that do truly understand how science actually works, but will satisfy many who desperately need to retain the idea that young-earth creationism is viable. Such thinking might also appear to be directed to others, but it is not and is really for themselves, because it is all part of the elaborate framework that holds everything in place within the belief.
The belief is first embraced, the rest then follows to help bolster it all up.
Different Types of Science
So this next bit is the core, it is how Ken truly does square the circle …
You see, there are two different kinds of science. Observational science works in the present and is testable, repeatable, and observable. Historical science deals with the past (origins) and is not directly testable, repeatable, or observable. Historical science deals with the past (origins) and is not directly testable, repeatable, or observable. With historical science, the worldview you approach the evidence with is going to determine how you interpret the evidence. Secular scientists start from the perspective that man is the ultimate authority and determines truth, but we start from the view that the Bible is God’s Word and provides the true history of the universe. So we both reach different conclusions when we look at the evidence.
Nope … wrong, science is a methodology is applied universally, it is objective and not subjective, and time is not something you can utilise to slice it up into categories, ah but you knew that of course.
It does prompt several questions …
- Why does he not know what science is actually all about and how it really works?
- What motivates him to rationalise things in such a manner?
- Is he being dishonest and is simply taking this position in order to run a scam, or does he truly believe all this?
It may indeed be tempting to consider the idea that Ken is simply running a scam and so dismiss it all, but I’m convinced that he truly believes and is not just a fraudster running a get-rick-quick con; when challenged, he does not duck and run, but stands his ground and proceeds to echo these sincere sounding rationalisations.
As individuals, we tend to not simply accept specific religious ideas and concepts on the surface, but instead go a lot further and invest deeply by devoting time and financial resources for what can be best described as cultural and also emotional reasons. Once we are invested, it becomes very challenging to come to terms with the distinct possibility of being wrong. Ken has invested his entire life and all his resources in the idea of Creationism, as the head of Answers in Genesis with many others looking at him, he cannot ever consider the possibility that he might be wrong, and so must maintain the stance.
Last april, Ken Ham debated Bill Nye the science guy. At the end of it one of the audience questions was “What would change your mind?”. Mr Nye observed that one piece of evidence, a fossil in the wrong layer, or evidence that you can stop atomic clocks would, Mr Ham clearly stated that nothing ever would.
He has the bible and that apparently is the definitive word, but if this is the case then how can he possibly know that, especially since it falls into his “Historical Science” category. If asked how and when the world was created, he would simply point to the bible and assure you that it all happened 6,000 years ago in seven literal days, to which I am ever so tempted to then reply, “How do you know that, were you there?”.
No no, you are wrong
Perhaps you are entertaining the thought that I’m being a tad biased here, that Answers In Genesis is OK, is science based, and that it is just Ken who is a bit eccentric and has a few odd ideas.
If so, then you might like to perhaps consider the following claims from their website …
- Flying fire breathing dragons are real
- Unicorns are real
- Dinosaurs and humans once lived side by side
So there you go then, by their “scientific” standard the Flintstones is really a documentary, and they have no choice but to think like this because they are so deeply invested in the idea both emotionally and also financially.