Gabrielle's Friendship Day: Answers in Genesis

Showing posts with label Answers in Genesis. Show all posts

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.

Atheists believe in god?

The Creation “Museum” visit gets noticed

Not all of the right-wingers at Free Republic are creationists. Some of the “Freepers” mixed it up after an item was posted on the visit by PZ Myers and 300 other nonbelievers to Ken Ham's pseudoscientific exposition. As one of them said, “The word museum is in quotes in the title thread with good reason.” A more devout Freeper responded with a biblical quote (of course):

Same old (yawn) debate.

Atheists make a determined choice to disbelieve in God. I've studied their "evidence." It's not evidence. It's mere guesswork.

That said, I guess I'll defer to Solomon: "The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Ps 14:1)

They're just not very good people and of necessity have chosen to reject God so as not to impede their sinful choices.

Why would we care what any such people think about God?

The truth is, they instinctively know God exists. Why else would they spend so much time trying to convince everyone He does not exist?

16 posted on Sunday, August 09, 2009 6:54:04 AM by LouAvul

What is this, exactly? Proof by contradiction? You say No, so you must mean Yes? (These guys must be great fun on a date.) He says he “studied” the evidence. Does that mean he didn't?

I think it's perfectly all right to mock something that doesn't exist. (Sarah Palin's intellect comes to mind. Or William Kristol's correct predictions.)

One additional little point, though, Mr. Freeper: Solomon does not get credit for the book of Psalms. Believers attribute the psalms to King David, Solomon's licentious father.

Of course, by saying “Solomon” maybe you meant “David.”

Yeah.

Creationists beat swords into plowshares

First fruits of creationist truce

Creation Ministries International of Australia agreed last month to bury the hatchet in its years-long dispute with the U.S.-based Answers in Genesis. Either CMI and AiG tapped into some unsuspected well of Christian charity, or both sides got tired of their attorneys tapping into their bank accounts.

What has the AiG-CMI “kiss of peace” wrought? Well, first of all, the two sides have stopped saying nasty things about each other. As a result, CMI no longer accuses AiG's Ken Ham of using deception to steal the subscribers of CMI's Creation magazine when he launched Answers magazine in 2007. Although he did. Ham presented Answers as a successor to Creation and not as a rival. If one read only AiG's mailings, it appeared that Creation was being discontinued, when all that was ending was Ken Ham's willingness to continue to distribute it to his U.S. membership base. For his part, Ham treats the controversy with delicate diffidence in a post on the AiG website:

While the intent was to offer both the Australian-published Creation magazine and the new U.S.-published Answers magazine (sometime in 2008 or 2009) as two options for its subscribers, irreconcilable differences arose concerning the printing and distribution of Creation magazine in the United States. AiG-U.S. as a result had to modify its strategic plan to offer just the new Answers magazine, rolling it out two–three years ahead of schedule. While this regretfully meant that Creation would no longer be distributed through AiG-U.S., the prospect of continuing subscriptions through the provision of a brand-new, culturally relevant, apologetics-based periodical (with an enhanced worldview emphasis) was exciting. AiG-U.S. was also very encouraged to learn of the excitement generated about the new magazine as expressed by overwhelmingly positive feedback from its subscribers.

For the most part, the settlement appears to be a victory for Ham, but this month there's evidence of the sop that CMI received to assuage its misery. AiG has used its mailing list to send a complimentary copy of the current Creation magazine to anyone who used to receive it from AiG before 2007. A cover note on AiG letterhead tells the story in nicely neutral language:

We have been asked by Creation Ministries International (“CMI”) of Australia to provide you with a complimentary copy of its Creation magazine. As a former subscriber to it, you may want to know that you can re-subscribe to the same publication through CMI, whose contact information is inside the magazine. Creation continues to be published by that Australian organization.

We hope you enjoy it.

Now that CMI and AiG no longer need to waste precious resources on their long-running legal battle against each other, they can join ranks and present a united front against the evolutionary foe. Surely Darwin's legacy is now doomed!

I know because I read it in the pages of Creation magazine. Or perhaps it was Answers magazine. They're actually difficult to tell apart. But they agree on one thing: the theory of evolution is about to collapse. Its defeat is imminent, just as it has been for several decades.

Oh, and Jesus is due to arrive any second now.

Don't hold your breath.

More creationist lies

You'd think God would mind

Why is it that devout creationists don't feel bound by the absolute truths of God's word? No matter how you divide up the tangled text of Exodus 19, the Ten Commandments always end up containing a rule against bearing false witness. Nevertheless, those who purport to take the Bible seriously barely hesitate before lying about evolution, Darwin, or any other target of their disdain. Apparently it's okay to lie if you're doing it for the greater glory of God.

Tricky.

The second 2009 issue of Answers Update from Answers in Genesis continues AiG's struggle against Darwin in particular and reality in general. The newsletter depicts Lincoln's visage as portrayed by the statue in his memorial in Washington. Across Lincoln's chest they've printed the words, “Our focus this month should be on Lincoln, and not a racist man like Darwin.”

There are at least two problems with the implications of AiG's declaration. Was Darwin a racist while Lincoln was not? The case of the Great Emancipator is a complicated one. Although he abhorred slavery and was the instrument of its abolition in the United States, he was enough a creature of his times that he was willing to go on record in support of the superiority of whites. In the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, he said, “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.... I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Thus Lincoln is not the perfect foil with which to skewer Darwin for any alleged racism. What about the other half of AiG's claim. Was Darwin truly a racist? Answers Update notes that Darwin referred to “degraded” people who were “savage.” That's neither remarkable nor particularly significant, since any well-to-do English gentleman could be expected to so characterize the living conditions of the native of Tierra del Fuego and other primitive lands. (Oh, oh! I just said “primitive”!)

Furthermore, Answers Update tells us that Darwin would rather have descended from a monkey than from a dark-skinned savage. Is this really what Darwin said? The source of this item is a passage in The Descent of Man, in which Darwin said:

For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

It seems that Darwin is merely citing man's well-known inhumanity to man and pointing out that humanity is not the exclusive possessor of virtue.

After this bit of quote-mining, AiG offers the following additional evidence:

Also, the subtitle of Darwin's main work On the Origin of Species further reveals his racist beliefs: “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

(AiG added the emphasis to “favoured.”) There is it, then. Darwin stands condemned by his own choice of words.

Except that we know better. And, we suspect, so does Ken Ham, who leveled these accusations against Darwin in his AiG radio program and then echoed them in Answers Update. Darwin is not using “race” in its narrow sense as applied to humans. The word is used in The Origin of Species in a much broader sense. Ham is almost certainly consciously lying when he spins the subtitle of Origin to tar Darwin with the brush of racism.

Consider, if you will, the following excerpts from Darwin's Origin:

Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil—in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the definite action of the poor soil—that they would, to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.

When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with closely allied species, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species.

You see that? Darwin even applies the word to cabbages. Is he therefore wickedly insulting the Cruciferae (and we could therefore denounce him as a “cruciferist”)?

I don't know what Darwin thought about cabbages in general, so I won't venture an opinion. I will, however, venture the opinion that Ken Ham belongs to the species known as Homo prevaricator.

The Darwin anti-celebration

They have Answers

Under the selective pressure of the great Year of Darwin, creationists are scrambling to adapt and survive. Answers in Genesis has long pretended to be an educational organization. The first issue of AiG's Answers magazine for 2009 is devoted to “teaching” antievolutionists to withstand the thousand natural shocks they will be subject to while the world celebrates the anniversaries of Charles Darwin (his bicentennial) and The Origin of Species (its sesquicentennial).

Darwin himself peers out at us from the cover of Answers (in the form of a detail from the famous John Collier portrait. Inside the magazine, on p. 6, publisher Dale Mason uncaps his pen to scribble a few thoughts under the title “Year of ~~Darwin~~ Opportunity.” Cute.

You see, 2009 is a huge year for evolutionists. They’ve been preparing for it with all the excitement and energy of Beijing’s Olympic committee. Dubbed “the year of Darwin,” 2009 marks Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his infamous book On the Origin of Species.

Ah, yes, that “infamous” book. Mason can't simply admit that it is one of the greatest works of science of all time. It has to be infamous.

This new year may herald the greatest mockery of the Bible since the Scopes trial “media circus” of 1925. With the world now swimming in anti-God propaganda, the stage is set for evolution to be promoted as never before.

PBS, NPR, BBC, National Geographic, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, tax-funded schools, nearly every natural history museum, and hundreds of secular periodicals—all these and more are poised to idolize this man, Darwin, whose worldview totally rejects the God of the Bible. The combined dollar value of their campaign to further Darwin’s ideas is staggering.

Actually, I expect there to be rather little mockery of the Bible. I do, however, anticipate quite a bit of mockery of Bible literalists like the pseudoscientists at Answers in Genesis.

Now, it’s late at night, and I have the proofs for this issue laid out before me on my kitchen table. Knowing all the behind-the-scenes obstacles that have nearly derailed this issue, I’m especially delighted with what God has done!

As anyone who has ever published a magazine knows, it takes divine intervention to get it in print. (So how does Skeptical Inquirer ever get done?)

The articles for the special Darwin section contain intriguing stories and facts that set the story straight. Most of us have never heard the real story.

As parents, educators, and influencers within our churches and communities, we all need to read and share the Bible-upholding, God-honoring truths of this issue. Each article is designed to give you the tools necessary to repel the onslaught of misinformation that you are about to experience.

Friend, if “good people [you] do nothing,” 2009 will very likely be a banner year in the recruitment of new believers in the evolution myth.

Did you get that, folks? Mason exhorts “good people” to do things in 2009, which I take to mean he wants creationists to get active. You and I and the rest of the sanely scientific population are therefore not “good.” There you have it: Evolutionists are bad people. I knew it all along!

But there is no limit to what God can do to rescue the misinformed, and revive the faith of Christians who have bought into the idea that compromise is an appropriate response.

Compromise on God’s Word was Darwin’s response. And look where that led us.

Yes. Look where Darwin led us. Let us praise and honor him.

Dollars against Darwin

Getting ready for Darwin Day

Have you made special plans for February 12, 2009, yet? It's not just the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth. It's also Charles Darwin's, and the latter's anniversary is setting off a worldwide celebration.

Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis is not a big fan of Darwin, but he knows a fundraising opportunity when he sees one. He sent me a letter warning me about the looming threat of Darwin Day and his need for money with which to combat it. His prose is typically apocalyptic (with lots and lots of bold). The scientists are coming to get you—and your children, too!

Dear Friend,

There’s no question we have a fight on our hands.

I wrote to you recently about Darwin Day, the new global holiday proposed by the worshippers of human reason. Their goal is to indoctrinate the world with molecules-to-man evolution and deny the troth of Genesis chapters 1-11—to undermine Christianity itself. But next year, it will get much worse.

Human reason has “worshippers”? Perhaps I should pause to genuflect and bow my head. Chest-thumping is optional (though our simian heritage gives us a yen for it).

Although Darwin Day will be February 12, 2009, we know many atheistic organizations will make the whole year a special push to get their ideas into every school and church. You see, next year will be Darwin's 200th birthday, and his book Origin of Species will be 150 years old. Darwin will be “everywhere” next year!

I'm most concerned for our nation's children attending public schools, who will be bombarded with even more evolutionist propaganda than usual in 2009.

See? Our children are in danger!

We've got the biblical and scientific ammunition we need to stand before the world—and the children of the world—with the truth, especially the gospel. But we do need your continuing help to do it.

It's one thing to have the knowledge and another to distribute it all around the globe, in many languages and many different forms. That takes the dedicated financial support of a lot of people committed to preserving the integrity of God's Word.

With your gift this month, you will help create two new Creation Museum exhibits that help destroy the foundations of evolution ... free-of-charge “Answers for Darwin” conferences that spread the news about Darwin's errors to abroad audience ... radio broadcasts, videos, and more that can rescue thousands of people from a faith-killing belief in evolution.

It didn't take him long to get to the money-grubbing, did it? But one has to wonder whether sending money to Ken Ham is a good investment for your average creationist. Didn't Ham “destroy the foundations of evolution” a long time ago? Then why won't the damned thing just fall down? The creationists keep tolling evolution's death knell but it continues robustly onward. The Rev. D. James Kennedy chortled as he declaimed, “My friends, evolution is dead coming out of the starting gate,” but Darwin's vigorous offspring is still here and Kennedy is the one who is gone.

And to show you how much I appreciate your support in this critical time, I'll send you our gorgeous 2009 Calendar in thanks for your gift of any amount. The 2009 Calendar itself is a powerful weapon against not only Darwin Day, but all year long, as humanists celebrate throughout 2009. This year, we've filled every month with beautiful color photographs and important information you can use to talk to your children, coworkers, friends, and church about the fallacies in Darwin's theories and confirmations of life's creation by a loving Creator.

Have you ever armed yourself with a weapons-grade calendar before? The Answers in Genesis calendar for 2009 is evidently a weapon of daft instruction.

For example, in the May page of the calendar, you'll learn how modem scientific studies actually refute Darwin's idea that genetic traits—like the long neck of the giraffe—develop on their own. We know that God created a wide variety of animal kinds with unique traits like the giraffe's, to bring glory to Himself and increase our wonder at His power!

This is the kind of information we need to share with our kids and grandkids: and encourage them to share with their friends—who are regularly bombarded with evolutionary teaching that attacks God's Word.

In fact, this calendar could be one tool God uses to equip a child you love with effective answers to defend their faith and reveal the errors of Darwinian evolution.

I'm asking you to send a gift today so we can get the calendar in the mail to you. The pages start with December 2008, and I don't want you to miss a single month.

The AiG calendar has thirteen months. Hmm. I'm not sure, but I suspect it's a sin to tamper with time.

But even more, I'm asking for your generous support right now because we have a lot to do to prepare for the Darwin onslaught next year and these attacks on the very foundation of Christianity.

I believe that we can turn the enemy's plans for 2009 inside-out, responding with an overwhelming demonstration of God's sovereignty over human reason. How many people—especially the children—can we show the truth and turn their hearts to their Creator and Savior, Jesus Christ?

Sincerely in Christ,

Ken Ham
President

P.S. Don't forget to request your stunning 2009 Calendar when you send your gift of support today! Your gift will help Answers in Genesis create resources to combat Darwin all year—just as the calendar will prepare you and your family to refute the claims of evolutionists throughout the coming year. Thank you for standing with us at this critical time!

Thanks anyway, Ken, but I've decided to get a Far Side calendar instead.

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.

Creative parasitism

Answers raises more questions

Answers in Genesis is still basking in the afterglow of the successful launch of its Creation Museum, attendance records having exceeded the creation ministry's original projections. (These people seem to be wrong about everything.) How best to take advantage of AiG's higher profile? Ken Ham knows what to do: As long as AiG can profit from pretending to be a scientific organization, why not embellish the charade with a “professional peer-reviewed technical journal”?

I'm sure the key word in that phrase is “peer.” Creation “scientists” tend to be kind to each other. The review process will undoubtedly be extremely gentle.

Funny thing about the new Answers Research Journal: It's Ken Ham's second rip-off of Creation Ministries International, the Australia-based organization with which Ham's Answers in Genesis used to be affiliated. A couple of years ago Ham bamboozled CMI by using its Creation magazine subscriber list to solicit sign-ups for AiG's new Answers magazine. With a breezy disregard for the commandment about not bearing false witness, Ham told Creation subscribers in the U.S. that the magazine would no longer be available (implying it was ceasing publication), and the slick new Answers magazine was being launched to replace it. Nowhere were Creation's subscribers told that CMI was continuing to publish the magazine, because that would have defeated Ham's plan to seize Creation's entire U.S. subscriber base as he detached AiG from the CMI parent organization.

You can anticipate the sequel: Yes, CMI also had a “professional peer-reviewed technical journal.” Originally called the Creation Technical Journal, CMI's “scientific” publication is now published under the name Journal of Creation. Since Ken Ham presumably no longer has access to CMI's subscriber database, his launch of the rival Answers Research Journal will perforce be a more legitimately competitive move than his sly double-cross in the case of Creation versus Answers. Perhaps he would like to be more underhanded, but the opportunity has slipped away.

Lies for Xmas

Give the miracle of creation!

The mail brought a wonderful gift idea from Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis. He's worried that I might be puzzled about what to get my closest friends and family members for Christmas. Ham has the perfect solution.

Give a Creation Museum membership, and you'll be giving yourself or your loved ones a gift that will last well beyond the season.

That's the ticket! I can give my nieces and nephews unlimited admission to the Creation Museum, one of the pre-eminent collections of cracked-brain pseudoscientific misconceptions in the known universe.

Thanks, Ken, but I think I'll pass.

Blog Archive