Punctuation for thee and me

Bringing reason to a full stop

The back page of a recent Answers Update (Vol. 18, No. 6) carries a bright little apologetic nugget by Ken Ham himself, the strikingly australopithecine leader of Answers in Genesis. Ham is talking about the earth's effing magnetic field. How does it work?

[G]eophysical and archaeological evidence indicates that 1,000 years ago, the magnetic field of the earth was 40% stronger than today. This field is actually decaying at a rate of 5% per century.

The decay rate may not sound like much, but it's a very important factor in determining the age of the earth. Using the current rate of decay, it's been calculated that just a million years ago, the magnetic field would have been so strong that it would have melted the planet! ...

Creationist physicists declare that the magnetic field is a very strong indicator that our planet cannot be any older than 10,000 years. This, of course, confirms the roughly 6,000-year timeline in the book of Genesis.

Please don't be distracted by Ham's use of amusing little oxymorons like “creationist physicists.” We can easily detect what he is up to. There's a useful word to describe the theoretical foundation for Ham's argument:

Uniformitarianism.

Obvious. Right? Ham is assuming that conditions affecting the earth's magnetic field have remained exactly the same throughout history. What else is that besides uniformitarianism? Of course, Ham might beg to differ. Let's see how he described uniformitarianism in the 1987 edition of his book The Lie: Evolution:

Geologists have the idea that the processes we see operating in the present world have been going on for millions of years at essentially the same rate, and will probably go on for millions of years into the future as well. The technical word used in geology for this belief is “uniformitarianism.” For example, the desert museum in Tucson, Arisona, not only has a display for people to see what supposedly has happened over the past millions of years, but it also has a display of what many scientists believe will happen to Arizona over the millions of years yet to come!

Evolutionists, atheistic and theistic, use the phrase “the present is the key to the past.” In other words, they say that the way to understand the past is to observe what happens in the present.”

Bingo! Ham's magnetic-field argument for a young earth is a page ripped right out of the uniformitarianism playbook. He stands self-accused.

One imagines that Ham might wish to quibble. He could claim that he was using a reductio ad absurdum argument—or proof by contradiction—having demonstrated that the assumption of uniformitarianism leads to an impossibly high level of magnetic flux in the prehistoric past.

Sorry. That won't work. He is not just arguing that an old earth is impossible. Ham explicitly declares that some simple computations provide evidence consistent with a young earth. He is making a “pro” argument for his position every bit as much as he is making a “con” argument against his opponents (which constitute 99% of the scientific community).

Ham may not like uniformitarianism, but he is certainly willing to use it when it suits him. Perhaps he needs to create a new label for it. May I suggest “punctuated uniformitarianism”? He can use it to argue that physical laws and natural processes are uniform between occasional catastrophes—like his magnetic-field argument.

E.T. goes to hell

Therefore he doesn't exist

Sound reasoning is a good basis for religious beliefs, wouldn't you say? So what about this example? It's from the first 2011 issue of Answers magazine from those geniuses at Answers in Genesis:

Because Adam's sin affected the whole universe, it would also affect any alien. But as nonhumans, aliens would not be eligible for salvation (this is one reason we are confident that intelligent aliens do not exist). So baptizing an alien would be pointless at best, and a mockery at worst. Jesus did not die for Martians—only descendants of Adam can be saved.

See? Simple, isn't it?

So is Ken Ham, who offers this profound observation:

Secular astronomers claim that the universe evolved slowly over billions of years. But this conclusion does not come from the facts they see but from the assumptions they must make to interpret the unseen past. This issue of Answers, written by leading creation astronomers, shows how the facts actually line up with God's account of a recent creation but can't be explained by evolution over billions of years.

Ken's tight reasoning suffers only from prolixity. I can help him shorten his statement by removing excess words. For example, for “secular astronomers” read “astronomers.” For “creation astronomers,” read “cranks.”

All better now.

Creationism evolves again

AiG responds to selective pressure

When anyone accuses Ken Ham of being pugnacious, the creationist guru of Answers in Genesis knows what to do. He gets in their face and escalates!

Some time ago, a secular reporter accused me of promoting violence. It was because he saw AiG’s classic “castles illustration” we often use, which really sums up the spiritual battle AiG is fighting.

The two castles illustrations are labeled “Problem” and “Solution.” Notice the use of cannons on the castle. Now, I wonder what the same reporter might say if he saw some of the newer diagrams I use in my talks—today I’m using missiles!

---

That's right. Ken Ham's slide show has been brought up to date. It's evolved.


Until recently, the canonical version of Ham's castle illustration featured cannons. That's what you see in the accompanying color slide that Ham used in his presentations until recently. It's been around a long time. For example, here's how it looked as a more primitive black-and-white figure from the 1987 edition of The Lie: Evolution, Ham's “classic” broadside against modern science:


As you can see, Creation Castle has been losing ground, going from bad to worse. The 1987 illustration depicts a single piratical figure (a secular humanist, no doubt) aiming Evolution Castle's only cannon at the foundations of Creation Castle (the bedrock afforded by Christ). An ineffectual sidekick hovers in the background, apparently puffing on more sinful balloons to add to euthanasia, homosexuality, divorce, pornography, abortion, and racism. Fortunately for the swashbucklers of humanism, the clerics of Castle Creation are a feckless lot. One of them is firing in the wrong direction while another is drawing a bead on the only creationist aiming at the citadel of evolution.

In the later (color) cannon version, divorce has given way to “family break-up” and homosexuality has become the more specific “homosexual behavior.” There are now two buccaneers on balloon duty and three are blasting away at creation's foundations. The tide is clearly flowing against the forces of godly superstition. What's more, although the number of occupants of Creation Castle have also increased, there is still only one who is fighting the good fight for creationism. Does Ham identify with that lone hero? The Christian ranks are rife with treachery and sloth. (I note that the Christians are now in more secular garb.)

Ken Ham mentioned missiles. Indeed. Check out the new metaphors for the battle between creation and evolution, shown in the accompanying figure. The little creationists and evolutionists are no longer to be seen, presumably having returned whence they came (which I suspect was Akbar-and-Jeff land). Creation Castle has been replaced by a conventional looking church and a weird bunker identified with Answers in Genesis. The bunker is even bigger than the church, and both are dwarfed by the huge cross (with roots!). The Scud missiles of secular humanism and evolution are roaring toward the Genesis foundations of Christianity, but the bunker's parabolic dish tracking device improbably has the power to emulate Ronald Reagan's most unlikely “Star Wars” fantasy, zapping the enemy missiles in mid-flight. (Ah, yes. Fantasy.)

In the words of Ken Ham:

[W]e do see ourselves as supplying the “troops” with ammunition. As I've often said, the books, DVDs, etc., are really “Christian Patriot missiles” to battle those who fight against God's Word.

---

I don't know if Ham likes to end his presentations with a rousing chorus of Praise God, and Pass the Ammunition, but I suspect he doesn't. That hymn is a bit too overt. Ham is already on record as objecting to being portrayed as militaristic. Ham suspects this secularist agenda was at work in Alexandra Pelosi's Friends of God:

Pelosi may have had an agenda to portray Christians as militaristic, for that aspect is weaved in and out of the documentary. That type of claim is increasingly becoming more public as opponents of conservative evangelical Christianity are turning more vocal. For example, this thesis is found in a just-released, anti-evangelical book entitled American Fascists. The author, Chris Hedges, a respected newspaper journalist formerly with The New York Times, believes that evangelicals (the “religious right”) are poised to take over America, fascist-style, during the next 9/11-like crisis. He particularly notes the use of military metaphors used by many evangelicals, who often apply Ephesians 6 terminology in their messages (e.g., phrases from Ephesians such as the following: “put on the whole armor of God,” “the shield of faith,” “the sword of the Spirit,” etc.). In the HBO program, Ken is seen describing AiG’s books and DVDs as “Christian patriot missiles” that can counter evolutionary teaching. It feeds the false belief held by Hedges and others that evangelicals are militaristic in a very real sense, not just spiritual.

---

That certainly is a dirty trick, using Ken Ham's own words. Militaristic metaphors do not necessarily indicate that religious people will engage in violence. I mean, whoever heard of “holy war,” right? No such thing!

By the way, I find it peculiarly apt that Ham describes his defenses against the enemy as “Patriot missiles.” People who remember anything about Raytheon's Patriot missiles in the first Gulf war probably recall the flush of triumph when they were initially credited with bringing down Iraq's Scud missiles. They're much less likely to remember the aftermath, when it was discovered that the Patriots had actually failed. Ham might want to keep this in mind when he intelligently designs his next metaphor for the conflict between science and superstition.

Ham endorses Dawkins

The odd couple

Speaking colloquially, I have always regarded Richard Dawkins as on the side of the angels. That is, Dawkins is one of the good guys. He has no patience with the god-pushers and he smites creationists hip and thigh. Dawkins famously faced off with the now-disgraced Ted Haggard, the evangelical pastor who upbraided Dawkins for his “arrogance.” Even some secularists wish Dawkins would back off a bit and try to be more diplomatic as he explains to the faithful that their most cherished beliefs are mere stuff and nonsense. A tall order, certainly.

Now comes Ken Ham, however, with a stirring endorsement of one of Dawkins's key points. Ham is a well-known proponent of the all-or-nothing approach to the Bible. No compromises! Fundamentalists of the jot-and-tittle school of biblical exegesis insist on believing everything in the pages of scripture as literally as possible. In his lead editorial in Answers Update (Volume 13, Issue 11), Ham cites Dawkins while attacking fellow Christians for their willingness to compromise.

Dawkins vs. God!

One of the leading evolutionary spokespersons of our age is Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University in England.

In his new book The God Delusion Dawkins clenches both fists and attempts to “take on” the God of the universe!

The publisher's blurb on the cover of the book states:

Dawkins attacks God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed, cruel tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign, but still illogical, Celestial Watchmaker favoured by some Enlightenment thinkers.

He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the ultimate improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry and abuses children.

---

I will bring just one of Dawkins many points to your attention. Taken from chapter seven, the self-proclaimed atheist mocks the hypocrisy of compromising Christian theologians:

The legend of the animals going into the ark two by two is charming, but the moral of the story of Noah is appalling. God took a dim view of humans, so he (with the exception of one family) drowned the lot of them including children and also, for good measure, the rest of the (presumably blameless) animals as well.

Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don't take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories.

Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist's decision to follow this moral precept or that was [also] a personal decision, without an absolute foundation. If one of these is 'morality flying by the seat of its pants', so is the other [emphasis added].

---

At least Dawkins is being consistent. He recognizes that his own “morality”—which is based on his atheism—is relative! And he points out correctly: if theologians “pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe,” then they too are actually saying that truth is relative … to be decided by humans!

---

So Ken Ham and Richard Dawkins agree on a key point: Biblical faith is a seamless garment. It is made of whole cloth. If you unravel one corner, its entire fabric will fall apart into a tangle of loose thread. Of course, they disagree as to whether this outcome is desirable.

Ham's dismay, as you may have noticed, is limited to lamenting the fragility of the all-or-nothing belief structure. He says nothing—absolutely nothing—about Dawkins's point concerning the mass-murderer God who ordained Noah's flood. What manner of Christian thinks it's all right for the deity to drown untold numbers of small children because he disapproved of their parents? It's on a par with the doctrine of infant damnation. Perhaps Ham neglects to answer Dawkins's charge because the supposed “sin nature” of humanity is too lame an excuse. Everyone deserves death, you know, because of that Adam and Eve business in Eden.

Rather than dwelling on such unpleasantness, Ham jumps to an attack on the notion of an old earth:

For all our 12 years, Answers in Genesis has been calling out to those Christian leaders who compromise the clear teaching of Genesis by accepting the secular idea of millions of years and evolution.

Such compromise undermines people's acceptance of the authority of the Word of God. The very people these Christian leaders influence—both the “ordinary” church attenders and the leaders who teach and govern within the local body—soon join their pastors in believing that you can insert man's fallible ideas and reinterpret the clear meaning (the “hermanuetic” [sic]) of Scripture. This has put many youth and adults on a slippery side—with tens of millions eventually rejecting the Bible as the Word of God. And friend, that's not just opinion. Keep reading!

A few days ago I was given an initial overview of a major national poll that was commissioned by AiG (as a follow-up to the results of an alarming Barna Research poll of 2002 and a Southern Baptist poll of around the same time). The AiG-commissioned poll (conducted by one of America's leading researchers) clearly shows that a major reason many have left the church is because they no longer believe the Bible is the absolute Word of God.

(We will share other deeply alarming findings over the next few months.)

By the way; such compromise positions in the church are seen by many—inside and outside the church—as sheer hypocrisy. They hear Christian leaders say that the Bible is infallible, but they watch as those same Christian leaders “pick and choose” which bits (particularly in Genesis) are to be accepted as written.

Many church leaders think that such compromise is necessary in order to appease the secular academics of the age. The reality, however, is that secular academics of the age mock such compromise. Like Dawkins, they recognize that if you can't trust what the Bible clearly states in one area, you can't trust any of it! Seeing such compromise in the church only fuels Dawkins' hatred of God and His Word.

Can I urge you to pray for Richard Dawkins? God is long-suffering—as He was in the days of Noah. He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

Also, please pray for compromising church leaders—that they will accept and proclaim the authority of God's Word, from the very first verse.

---

Ham and Dawkins agree that fundamentalist Christianity is undermined by acceptance of the scientific proofs of the age of the earth and the evolution of life upon it. Ham is therefore correct, from his point of view, to decry the creations of Richard Dawkins, books like The Blind Watchmaker, The Ancestor's Tale, and, more recently, The God Delusion.

Dawkins looked upon his handiwork and saw that it was good. Too bad that the creationists keep us from resting on the seventh day.