Questions for Answers in Genesis #2

I haven’t posed questions to Answers in Genesis for a while now, so I suppose the second installment of “Questions for Answers in Genesis” is long overdue. Let the inquest begin!

From AiG’s “Answers Weekly” (26 Jan 08):

One of the most frequently asked questions posed by Christians and skeptics alike concerns how Noah could fit all the animals on the Ark. Secular evolutionists mock those of us who take the account of the Ark and a global Flood as literal history. They claim Noah couldn’t have fit the supposed millions of animals needed on board.But a little research shows clearly that Noah didn’t need millions of animals. Only representatives of each kind of land-dwelling and air-breathing animal were needed. Creationists have shown that there can be many different species within each kind—for example, dingoes, wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs all of these belong to the same kind.

So, if I’m reading this correctly, AiG is positing that speciation since the Flood (ca. 2500 BC) occured a rate faster than even naturalistic evolutionary theory would suggest! Just to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding AiG, I did a quick Google search and found this on AiG’s website:

… new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.

Wow. So why do creationists have such a hang-up over the agonizingly slow rate of evolution (as theorized by mainstream scientists) over the past 3.7 billion years? AiG goes on to say, “But this speciation is within the ‘kind,’ and involves no new genetic information.” No new genetic information? Can this be proven?

From 16 Feb 08:

Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity. Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.

Amen and amen! I’m surprised Ken Ham isn’t an evolutionist! (Of the theistic type, of course.) But then AiG had to say this:

Evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived.

How is accepting a “biblical” principle while simultaneously denying the Bible’s divine origin inconsistent? (By the way, I’m curious to know where in the Bible it states this scientific principle of “uniformity.” Bueller? Bueller?) Even as a YEC, I knew better than to use this kind of strawman argument.

Until next time …


Filed under Uncategorized

5 Responses to Questions for Answers in Genesis #2

  1. Hi Mike,
    I remember being floored too the first time I saw this on AIG. I think they also have something about natural selection working.

    Itis kind of ironic:
    1. Ham et al have no problems with natural selection, genetic mutations, & other evolutionary mechanisms as long as they work fast enough so support a 6000 year old earth.
    2. Behe (and some other ID folks) have no problems with common descent as long as there are some gaps in the natural record.

    So, are we getting somewhere?

  2. Dan Werner

    Great post!

    YEC is evolving isn’t it in their desperation to find arguments to support their ridiculous claims.

    I challenge them to define EXACTLY what a “kind” is. In the bible it’s not a scientific term, and for YECers it’s a pseudo-scientific argument to get them out of trouble.

    No new genetic information? This has been refuted by endless papers and research on evolution, esp. regarding bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Mutations prove essential in this process not just new combinations of genetic material.

    Uniformity, it would seem, is not directly taught in scripture (I could be wrong here), but since we have a loving God who wants us to be in charge of creation it makes sense that he would make it in such a way that we could understand it. (Gosh that was a long sentence.) That is, fill in gaps of understanding (i.e. against ID). That is, apply empiricism in a consistent way when we approach origins (i.e. against YEC or OEC). It seems the principle of uniformity works best for us ECers.


  3. Dan,

    Yes, the principle of uniformity works well for evolutionists like ourselves. We can possibly discern such a principle from the nature of God as revealed in the Bible, but I can’t imagine the Bible pronouncing a principle intended to guide man’s scientific discovery methods. Heck, why do we even need to appeal to the Bible to know that the universe is an orderly place, even amidst the chaos that appears from time to time? I think our scientific observations have given us enough proof of that.

  4. A bit ironic for Ham to be attributing uniformity to God, considering YECs are constantly tearing down “uniformitarianism” as being part of the “evolutionist” world-view. But these guys have never been known for consistency.

  5. Creationism itself definitely does evolve, as Ronald Numbers’ excellent book, _The Creationists_, shows (now in a 2nd edition).

Leave a Reply to Dan Werner Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.