Jackson Wheat

March 4, 2015
Science Deniers
The magazine National Geographic wrote a very interesting and true article titled The
Age of Disbelief, which Answers in Genesis writer Avery Foley is whining about. The article
tells of the disbelievers of science, from deniers of evolution to vaccines, and how the sciencedeniers have no rational basis for their claims. The AiG page National Geographic Accuses
AiG of Doubting Science (hm, I wonder why) says, The article seems to stage the debate as
science versus uninformed belief. But the debate is not science versus beliefits one
interpretation of the evidence versus another interpretation! No, actually the debate is science
versus belief; Ken Hams debate with Bill Nye proved that point very clearly. Whenever Mr.
Nye returned to the evidence refuting Mr. Hams creationist viewpoint, Mr. Ham responded by
saying, Theres a book [the Bible]. Saying that the issue is not science versus belief is a
straight lie; there are no arguments in the laboratories around the world between scientists who
believe in evolution versus those who do not. That does not happen because those debates only
take place on college campuses and in churches, while the scientists in the labs are testing the
validity of their hypotheses. Whenever a creationist scientist does publish a paper about a
proven theory, the article never has anything to do with evolution being wrong or the Bible being
correct. I mentioned a creationist scientist doing just that in my article about Elizabeth
Mitchell.
The next paragraph covers, I read while visibly shuddering, the two types of science.
Mr. Ham and his creationist followers believe that science is split into two different areas of
science called observational and historical science, andspoiler alertMr. Ham thinks
historical science cannot be tested. Here is what Ms. Foley says about the two regions of
science: Observational science deals with the present and involves the use of the scientific
method where a process or condition can be tested, observed, and repeated. Its observational
science that put man on the moon, developed vaccines, and made computers and cell phones
possible. Let us get something crystal clear: ALL SCIENCE CAN BE TESTED! If science
could not be tested, like creationism, then it would not be science. Regardless of what the
scientist is studying, an observation or experiment is science as long as it produces reproducible
results which correspond to observable material phenomena. At least Ms. Foley does not say
evolution is not science because it is just a theory. Next, Ms. Foley outright contradicts herself
by saying that evolution is untestable, and yet she says that observable science develops
vaccines. Where does she think the vaccines come from? Does she think that doctors pray for
the vaccines and Yahweh bestows the vaccines upon them? That is ludicrous; scientists study the
evolution of bacterias and create vaccines based on the evolution! How can one not accept
evolution and benefit from vaccines?
The following paragraph says that the worldviews of creationists and secularists are
different because the secularists have a history written by fallible scientists, while the history of
the Bible was written by an infallible deity. Actually, the Bible was written by fallible humans
having a cultural rebirth after being exiled from Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, and the Bible was
put together by the Council of Nicea, which was also filled with fallible humans. She seems to
be saying that people cannot trust anything written by humans because humans are fallible. Do
not go to the hospital if you are so afraid of human fallibility. Anyway, she also seems to look at
the secularist worldview as though it has no evidence to support its views, when in fact

creationism has a complete lack of evidence for biblical creation. The article says, Secular
scientists and, sadly, even many Christian scientists, start with mans ideas about the past. After
breaking down the argument about human fallibility, I feel the need to explain the foolishness of
this claim. Humans may be fallible, but hundreds or thousands of men and women worldwide
have been testing the claims of science for hundreds of years and have found the claims to be
true. The ability of scientists to evaluate scientific claims without reference to anyones religion
or the lack thereof is called objective reasoning. Objective reasoning and testing allows
scientists, and common people, to learn what we know about the universe, and objective
reasoning allows scientists to learn ever more about the universe or multiverse.
Thousands of books have been written about the evidence for evolution and the Big
Bang, and while many books have been written about the evidence for creationism, the tests
and experiments performed by regular scientists can be redone and redone and redone. Where is
the evidence that people can die for three days and come back to life? Where is the test that
shows all the carnivores were herbivores before original sin or an old, unskilled man and his
family built a wooden boat for two of every animal, many of which were from continents that
were yet to be discovered? Richard Dawkins put it well when he asked how penguins could get
from the Middle East to Antarctica. How were the millions of animal species in North and South
America, Australia, and Antarctica supposed to get to the Middle East when an ocean stood in
the way? Creationists have no response to this; they attempt to explain it by saying that one of
each kind of animal went to the ark, but what is a kind? A year after I first heard the word
kind, I first heard it from the Nye-Ham debate, no creationist has told me what it means. Some
creationists say that it means species; some say it means family, which would mean that humans
could give birth to chimpanzees; and some say that it means animals that have shared
characteristics, which would mean that all organisms are one kind (since they are all composed
of at least one cell). The article says that creationists accept climate change, so I do not need to
go into that.
The National Geographic article says, In science its not a sin to change your mind
when the evidence demands it. That is very true, and the AiG page says this, This is generally
true unless, of course, you are overturning major tenets of biological evolution or the
interpretation of millions of years in the rock layersWhat Achenbach and many secular
scientists are saying is that if you question evolution or long ages, then you arent a scientist
regardless of your credentials or the quality of your research. No, if someone were to
objectively disprove evolution or the Big Bang, while not swinging a Bible, then the person
would be considered a hero in the scientific community. A prime example of this is the
creationist scientist (I only use the quotation marks because scientists do not normally consider
themselves as part of some religion or the lack thereof because the scientists do not care) from
Elizabeth Mitchells article. If you interpret observations and experiments without evidence, as
in saying it does or does not agree with the Bible, then you are not a scientist; it is that simple.
The article then makes me shake my head in annoyance because it says, This highlights that the
creation versus evolution debate is not about the evidence. Its a battle between two differing
worldviews. Do creationists think this is what the science versus religion debate is about? Do
they think that the debate is that no one has any evidence, and everyone just posits an
explanation of history regardless of what nature tells us? That is an extremely childish way to
view the debate.
This is a rather long quote, but I need it to show the intense foolishness of the creationist
worldview: Without the Bible, it isnt even possible to do science! You see, in order to do

science we have to assume that the universe is logical and orderly and that the laws of nature and
logic will operate the same way tomorrow as they do today. But in a completely material,
purposeless universe (like evolutionists propose) why should there be any order and why should
immaterial laws of nature govern an entirely material universe? In a naturalistic worldview,
there is no reason why this should be! First, scientists have had and will continue to have an
easy time doing science without the Bible. Second, Ms. Foley has obviously never heard of
uniformitarianism, which states that things which are orderly today were orderly in the past (for
example, rock layers). Uniformitarianism is a completely material and natural phenomenon that
accounts for logical and orderly laws of nature. Had Ms. Foley done even a minutes worth of
research, she would know this. Third, who cares if there is no ulterior purpose to life? Why
must there be an ulterior purpose to life for life to have meaning to people? Everyone designs
his or her own purpose. Fourth, immaterial laws govern a material universe? This is odd; Ms.
Foley seems to suggest that the laws human devised to explain the universe cannot govern
natural phenomena because they are not material. What would a material law even look like?
What does that even mean?
The last quote I will retrieve from this completely erroneous paper is this: The law of
biogenesis states that life only comes from life. Everything that we have ever observed in
biology supports this ideathats why its a scientific law. And, yet, according to naturalistic
biological evolution, life had to arise at least once from non-living chemicals. The evolutionary
idea of the origin of life goes completely against what we observe in biology. Okay, so because
abiogenesis has never been observed, it is impossible? That could be said of anything people do
not yet know: we do not know how to teleport; therefore, teleportation is impossible. Or we do
not have the cure to cancer; therefore, cancer is incurable. That is irrational; scientists are still
searching for the answers because they do not claim to know everything, unlike creationists. The
article finishes out by saying that science, despite everything we can observe in nature, confirms
the Bible. Avery Foley is just another creationist fighting against all observations of nature and
all scientists for biblical creation.