Confession

Featured Writer

Mindy Wise

Peoria AZ

Answers in Genesis: A complete fake

As all of you well know, there has been heated debate and tension between the creationist and evolutionist sides. Obviously, I am for the side that holds its weight in evidence; evolution. When I was a Christian, I grew up on countless Christian talk shows that I was too impressionable and young to question. As I grew older, even then I did not think to research evolution and the facts behind it or the lack thereof on the creationists side. In fact, I didn't even know that I was a follower of creationism, considering I wasn't aware our beliefs had a particular name. I simply took it as truth, and nothing more. Among those talk shows my mother loved to immerse her household in was a creationist program with a heavy fundamentalist Christian background called "Answers in Genesis". I eagerly listened and mistakenly hung on their every word instead of listening to my teacher in science class. Now, as an atheist, it has been my pleasure to look into some of their claims and the controversies surrounding them. You should know that their favorite saying is, "Instead of trying to fit the bible into science, fit science into the bible!". This means that we shouldn't look to facts to draw a conclusion, but assume the conclusion is whatever is said in the bible and then find facts to support it. The information I have gathered on AiG has so far shown me in less than a half an hour that:

A: Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, has been sued by his own creationist category.

B: Hypocrisy abounds in their claims, which I will show you an excerpt of later.

C: AiG is painfully misinformed about many of their "findings" and have manipulated and conformed "evidence" to make it sound as if it supports their claims. For years they have gone on to misinform ignorant Christians and hopeful creationists. (For instance, their claim that human bones have been found with animal bones which they have since retracted subtly.)

D: The demeanor in which Ken Ham operates has been prone to being hysterical.

Take, for example, as this AiG member trying to form a rebuttal against a site that refuted their claim about human bone being found in cretaceous rock, and they instantly attack the site's credibility (to which, one can argue that AiG has been found to have little to none itself) and say: "One thing to realize about Talk Origins (the opposing website) is that it is not a site with technical peer-reviewed material. Many of their technical articles have never been peer-reviewed and even contain extensive amounts of speculation. Because of this, one needs to be discerning when reading their articles to divide facts (2 Timothy 2:15) from personal opinions/interpretations. Use these same facts and interpret them with the biblical presupposition as opposed to evolutionary presuppositions."

So, essentially what the last bit is saying is, "Don't be biased, just look at these "facts" as if you were a Christian trying to prove the Bible is geologically correct."

What? That's a confusing statement if there was any. In two sentences this AiG member has been able to contradict themselves more obviously than if the error were two inches from my pupils. Unfortunately for them, they have been found to talk in circles on many an occasion.

In short, so far I have found that their so-called "facts" have fallen apart in front of them time and time again. They have either quietly tried to dismiss these little details or have passionately opposed the solid facts which have been found and well-known for years when they should have suffered a great embarrassment for their erroneous claims. Not only this but if Ken Ham is being sued by other creationists, this casts his character in an ill light, and not to mention his behavior when having been deservedly cornered gives away the lack of ability to defend his own position. I'm very early in my research of this group but I am eager to find out more about their ludicrous stance. Creationists are among some of the most untruthful and ridiculous people in the world. Did I mention that there is a small group of people, now, who are trying to redefine and rename gravity as Intelligent Falling? No joke! More and more I am finding that creationists, though trying to hide behind the words "Intelligent Design", are really only providing ideas, opinions, weak theories, and more often than not, falsified evidence. It angers me that they propose that they are scientists with solid facts to back them up, and yet they have nothing more than opinions to offer. How very, very sad.

It makes me wonder why we continue this debate at all.