Jackson Wheat

March 23, 2016

Sometimes Creationists Agree with the Rest of the Scientists
Answers in Genesis creationist John UpChurchseriouslywrote an article titled
Surprising Similarities Between Creation + Evolution. The similarities are really not that
surprising; the creationists look at natural phenomena only to turn straight to the Bible for
explanations, which it never provides. Mr. UpChurch begins the article by saying how modern
science supports the Biblethe same Bible that proclaims a global flood wiped out almost all
life, the Earth was created in six actual days, all humans are descended from two people who
lived about six thousand years ago, the Earth is flat, a firmament sat in the atmosphere, etc. So
despite the fact that the Bible makes countless ridiculous, unsupported claims, Mr. UpChurch
apparently believes that it is verbatim true from Genesis to Revelations. That is the kind of
person we are dealing with here.
One sentence bugs me a little near the beginning: That [belief about the age of the Earth
based on the raw facts] doesnt mean we agree on how to properly understand those facts, but
well get to that a bit later. I sincerely doubt that Mr. UpChurch will agree with any regular
scientist on what the raw facts are. Also, what does he mean by properly understand? Oh
wait, he does not mean compare facts in the context of other facts; he means compare facts with
what the Bible says. That is undoubtedly scientific.
The next bothersome sentence is, Stop me if youve heard this one before. Creationists
cant do real science because they start from the Bible and the Bible cant change. Real science
means that we have to follow the evidence where it leads. Science doesnt rule out answers
before we start. I would disagree with the notion that a creationist could not do science; the
method is rather simple. The only problem for creationists is following the evidence to its logical
conclusion, which is not the Bible. Perhaps starting from the Bible would be okay only if it were
used as the claim, not the evidence, then it could be rationally evaluated (I should mention that
the validity of various parts has been scientifically tested, and Scripture has fallen down
extraordinarily). I would also like to point out that if by ruling out answers before we start the
author is referring to removing illogical conclusions from the list of possible explanations for a
phenomenon, then the author is correct. For example, it is illogical to suppose that a supernatural
being is the cause of some event when there has never been any evidence of a supernatural being,
not least because it is by definition unable to enter our natural universe.
He [God] cant lie, He has perfect understanding, and He has plenty of power to keep
His Word (the Bible) safe and sound until it gets to us. So, that makes us confident weve got the
real scoop on how we came to be. How does Mr. UpChurch know Yahweh cant lie, has perfect
understanding, and wrote a totally trustworthy book (He did not; the Bible has been found
untrustworthy on multiple occasionsincluding the purpose and building of the Egyptian
pyramids, the population of cities like Ai and Jericho in the Book of Joshua, what pi equals, the
Moon is an independent source of light, the existence of a firmament, etc.)? Here is Mr.
UpChurchs answer: the Bible tells us these things. Wait, the Bible tells us that the Bible is
inerrant. Interesting. I do not feel this needs anymore explanation.
Anyway, the first point Mr. UpChurch makes is that both scientists and creationists do not
know everything about the universe. Correctfor once. Unfortunately, Mr. UpChurch attempts
to support this by asking questions only a creationist would ask, not a regular scientist: What
did the types of animals that God created during the first week look like? What did Noahs Ark

look like? How can distant starlight reach us in a universe that is only six thousand years old?
One is tempted to wonder how creationists can see everything and yet be so blind.
The next point Mr. UpChurch makes is that humans and chimpanzees have a lot in
common: We like them [chimps] too, and we agree to a part of their description. The great apes
are close in the sense that they do share quite a few traits with good ol Homo sapiens. They
have hands with five fingers, including an opposable thumb. Their basic body layout comes
pretty close to ours. Their brains have the capacity to learn simple communication skills through
sign language or other nonverbal methods. Even their DNA shares many parallels to the DNA in
our cells. So even though we share a great many characteristics with chimps, from genetics to
anatomy to biochemistry, Mr. UpChurch says, Gee, how neat that is. It means nothing. While
Mr. UpChurch is uncommonly honest for a creationist, his worldview tells him to completely
ignore all contrary evidence; this is why people laugh at the notion of creation scientists:
hearing the term brings to mind someone who puts his or her religion before science.
The next point is especially irritating: Whats really interesting here is that theres a
general order to the fossils. At the bottom, youll find mostly single-celled microorganisms, then
sea creatures in abundance, such as sponges, clams, and squids. Move up, and youll find
amphibians, then dinosaurs, and finally birds and large mammals. Mr. UpChurch actually
acknowledges that this occurs in the fossil record, and that scientists are not part of some anticreationist conspiracy! Then things go horribly wrong: The Bible implies that the earth was
relatively stable before the Flood, so few things were fossilized, mostly microorganisms. The
Flood brought dramatic change as the fountains of the great deep split wide open. The animals in
the oceans were likely buried first. As the waters rose, creatures on land were buried next.
Really? It just so happens that no microorganisms are found in strata older than about 3.8 billion
years old, no multicellular organisms in strata older than 1 billion years old, no fish before
multicellular organisms, no amphibians before fish, no reptiles before amphibians, and no
mammals or birds before reptiles? It just so happens there are no humans with dinosaurs? No
rabbits in the Cambrian? It is just one major coincidence? No, it is not; the creationist
interpretation of the fossil record fails scientifically on every count.
I find the fourth point rather amusing because the creationists have finally invented a
somewhat better rationalization of why fossils of the same species are found on continents
separated by an ocean. The old rationalization was that Noahs flood picked up multi-ton rocks
and moved them across the ocean just so they could be deposited underground in the location we
would expect the strata, i.e. dinosaur are found in Mesozoic strata (not in Paleozoic or Cenozoic
strata). Here is the new wrong answer: For creationists, Genesis 1 spells out for us that God
gathered all the oceans into one place and land in another at the start. Most infer from this that
He made one giant landmass, but some do not agree on how and when it broke upAfter the
Flood and the rapid geological race wound down, the continental plates slowed to the crawl we
see today. Again, we see Mr. UpChurch saying that this happened because the Bible says so, not
because actual evidence points to it happening. Allow me to make an analogy to describe what
the creationists believe about natural laws: imagine a lit candle. To regular scientists, the candle
can be studied, the environment can be studied, theories can be made, and scientists could
probably determine when the candle became lit (I realize that because it is a candle, we do not
expect candles to become lit without a lighter, but please bear with me). However, the
creationists would have you believe that the candle could have been running, jumping, and doing
whatever else it wanted until we walked into the room. If the implications of creationism were
accepted, then no hypotheses could ever be made because the creationists believe that the entire

world could suddenly change for no reason. The underlying assumptions of creationism cannot
be trusted, so creationism fails in its infancy.
The fifth point does what all the other points do: it looks at what we know and then draws
incorrect conclusions. For example, some birds have thick beaks that make it easier for them to
crack tough seeds. If soft seeds become scarce and hard seeds are coming out their ears
(figuratively speaking), then birds with thicker beaks will have an easier time finding breakfast.
So, theyre more likely to survive and have chicks. Thick-beaked birds win the buffet battle
Natural selection works only on whats already there, what traits the birds already hadYou
cant make something new out of material that isnt there. It just boggles my mind that
creationists can see evolution but not call it evolution; in fact, Mr. UpChurch even says, But
these genetic changes arent the same as evolution. Really, then what is evolution?
Dictionary.com says evolution is change in the gene pool of a population from generation to
generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift, and this is exactly
what is happening in Mr. UpChurchs example. Then what does Mr. UpChurch think evolution
is? Who knows; creationists rarely define their terms because that causes them to be picked apart
with ease. Look at micro- vs. macroevolution: while both are accepted evolution, creationists
only (and hypocritically, I might add) want microevolution for medicines and studying modern
nature. Macroevolution is major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another
occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa, which has been observedmosquito Culex
pipiens to Culex molestus, finches, cichlids, lots of plants, etc. Creationists rarely define
macroevolution, but when they do, they generally equate it to common ancestry, which it is not.
The concluding paragraphs are just as bad as everything else Mr. UpChurch has
mentioned; they say creationists love science (even if they want to remove about three-quarters
of it), evolution is unfounded, and the Bible is right because it says so. Again, this is not simply a
matter of interpretation, and creationists and scientists just interpret things differently; the
creationists are starting from the Bible and looking for evidence to prove the Bible. However, the
scientists look at the world and draw conclusions based on the evidence. I just had to laugh at
this sentence: In fact, I would humbly submit to you that a human-centered approach leaves a
lot to be desired. Really, humble? Creationism is the belief that the entire universe was created
specifically for us; where is the humbleness in that?