Breaking News: Science Was Wrong, Now It’s Right, Proves Bible!
On a linguistics web page, I found a large photograph of a display from Ken Ham’s Creation Museum. This display is entitled “Attempts to Discredit”. It purports to show how science originally claimed that the Bible was wrong, but recent discoveries now prove that the Bible had everything correct all along!
I’ll have to chop this picture up and take it piecemeal. Let’s start with the beginning of time:
All of the entries on this ridiculous plaque follow the same pattern. First, say what the Bible says:
The Bible claims the universe had a beginning.
It’s interesting that in almost every case, they use the word “claim”, which actually has a connotation of untruth to it. I wonder if they realize that they’re subconsciously casting doubt on their own assertions.
The next sentence describes what those foolish scientists used to think:
Philosophers and scientists rejected that claim for over two thousand years.
Then they tell us what the scientists now think:
Now astronomers believe the universe had to have had a beginning.
It’s peculiar that on this entire plaque, they’re telling us that the scientists—although they used to be wrong—are now right. Yet elsewhere in the museum, they tell us over and over that scientists are wrong. So if science proves the Bible, and the scientists are wrong, then the creationists are admitting that the Bible is wrong! Sweet!
Obviously, they’re picking and choosing which parts of modern science they like, just as they cherry pick those parts of the Bible that they like.
But let’s take a look at the specifics of this assertion:
The Bible claims the universe had a beginning. … Now astronomers believe the universe had to have had a beginning.
So because both statements include the word “beginning”, they’re somehow equivalent? They’re overlooking the fact that the Big Bang theory discredits everything—every stinking word!!—of Genesis.
Some nineteenth-century biologists argued that different races descended from lower animals.
Almost all of these entries cite unnamed “nineteenth-century scientists”. I’m guessing that is because the nineteenth century is when science really started to throw off the shackles of religion and started to look solely at the data. As a result, some of those early conclusions are bound to be daffy. In the early stages of any science, the data will be very sketchy, so it will be easy to come to incorrect conclusions. As the science matures, the theories will become more solid. In other words, nobody should be putting the same amount of weight on a new hypothesis as on an established theory. The Creation Museum is trying to create false equivalences.
Another problem with their unnamed nineteenth-century scientists is we don’t know who these people are. There were a lot of scam artists back then pushing things like the Cardiff Giant and mermaids. For all we know, their unnamed nineteenth-century “scientist” is P.T. Barnum.
So let’s look at this entry again:
The Bible claims that all humans are “one blood”. … Today, genetics has verified that there is only one human race.
That’s right. And those same genetics tell us that we descended from ape-like ancestors who evolved in Africa millions of years ago. Genetics disproves the Bible!
The Bible claims that God created animals “after their kind”. Nineteenth-century biologists argued that animals evolved from other, very different animals. Today, biology confirms that creatures reproduce within their own kind.
That’s not true! Present-day “biologists” Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron confirm that animals of different “kinds” can interbreed!
But seriously, those last two statements are not contradictory, because they’re taken from two different parts of evolutionary theory.
A shrew may always give birth to a shrew, but all mammals evolved from a prehistoric shrew.
Some of us just haven’t evolved very far.
The next entry is:
The Bible claims that God destroyed the earth in a worldwide Flood. Nineteenth-century geologists argued that rocks were formed slowly. Today geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically.
If by “catastrophically”, they mean “millions of years”, then yes. This is entirely true.
The Bible implies that most fossils were buried quickly as a result of the worldwide Flood.
This is an interesting statement. It’s not even a “claim”, this time. It’s merely “implied”. Well when I read the Bible, it implied that Ken Ham is a moron. At least my Biblical interpretation doesn’t contradict known facts.
Nineteenth-century paleontologists argued that fossils were buried slowly. Today, paleontology confirms that fossils were buried rapidly.
Dead animals have to be buried quickly in order to have a chance at fossilization, but that doesn’t mean it happened as the result of a worldwide flood. This is simple logic, folks! Doesn’t anybody who goes to the Cretin Museum notice these fallacies?
The Bible claims that God created a number of human languages at the Tower of Babel “according to their families”. … Today, linguists recognize languages fall into distinct “families” of recent origin.
“Recent” being anywhere between 50,000 and 500,000 years ago. The youngest of those estimates predates Ken Ham’s claimed age of the Earth by 44,000 years! Sure, Ken! Science proves your Bible!
January 4th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
The conclusions of several of these have absolutely nothing to do with the biblical assertion. Scientists conclude animals only reproduce within their own kind does not, in any way, refute evolution of animals. For example, I’m not aware of any scientist asserting that if only more humans would breed more with horses, we’d all evolve bigger ding-dongs.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Hehe, that’s amusing, seeing how there weren’t any scientists two thousand years ago. Most people would say science only started some 400 years ago, and not very well at that.
January 4th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I stumbled upon a creationist blog the other day. The total lack of understanding of how science works, how scientists think, etc. just astounds me. We’ve seen similar comments on this blog. I just don’t get how their minds work. I just don’t. And I’m just a liberal arts major who happens to appreciate science and, you know, how it attempts to portray the world around us.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
OtherRob – I don’t really have a hard time grasping their thought process. They have faith. Lots of faith. They think everything revolves around faith. Their entire religion is based on faith. Therefore, science MUST also be based completely on faith, not evidence. No matter what the scientists say. Afterall, their results must be tainted by their faith in the wrong explanation.
I get how their minds work. I just don’t get why.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
PL: I don’t think it’s ‘faith’ so much as it is a desire for self-assurance and of course, mental habits.
People want to think they can explain everything they see, but they can’t. By coming up with a story, it fills in that empty space in their head and gives them the self-satisfaction that they crave.
Then of course, we tend to stick with a lot of the facts we were taught as children. If we are not taught how to think for ourselves…then we are stuck in the mentality of our supposed intellectual superior and therefore completely at the mercy of whatever they claim to be truth.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:58 am
And to add to what Sarah says;
It’s hard to admit you’re wrong. It’s even harder if you’ve never had to do it, and when you’ve invested so much in it, both emotionally and financially.
It’s much simpler to say the other guy is wrong.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:30 am
Thanks a lot, Ron, for the startling image of Coultergeist as I’m eating my breakfast. I nearly yodeled groceries.
Alcari is correct. We tend to sometimes overlook the immense psychological, emotional, social, and financial investments believers have made in their faith. Most of the ones I know define their self-image through the filter of their beliefs. Any published scientific paper, any blog article, any comments, including this one, have an extraordinarily small chance of ever truly reaching a believer. Whenever they encounter anything contrary to their dogma, they are also reacting to it as if it were a personal attack as well.
In effect, we’re insisting that they go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate who they are as a person in very fundamental ways. They have no wish to sever the social ties they’ve built up over a lifetime, and, most importantly, they don’t want to face the possibility (or probability, from my standpoint) that the major explanatory foundation of their lives is a fantasy. Objectively I can understand this and even sympathize to an extent. When its just a single fundie continuing to delude himself, its one thing. But when the delusion is foisted upon unwilling or unwitting parties, then my compassion disappears.
January 5th, 2009 at 8:42 am
The bible also claims that bats are birds. Are we going to have to change our animal taxonomy as well?
January 5th, 2009 at 8:47 am
ParrotLover said:
And then Brian said:
So here you go, Brian. Help evolve the human race. Your filly awaits!
January 5th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Hey Ron, nice picture but I think you used the wrong end of the horse.
January 6th, 2009 at 5:09 am
Dude, she looks like John Kerry in the first pic. And really, horses are noble beasts. Let’s not be insulting to them.
January 10th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Brian “Whenever they encounter anything contrary to their dogma, they are also reacting to it as if it were a personal attack as well.”
Just flip it around as the “hate the sin, love the sinner” saying, but with “stupid” and, um “stup”. That’ll learn ‘em! Learn ‘em good!
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:37 pm
I wonder…have any of those who’ve posted studied the Bible on your own? Not someone else’s article or book about the Bible or “I used to go to Sunday School”.
I’m a Christian and I do a lot of research. I’m reading your comments. I don’t have a problem with the fact that I might be wrong about the Bible or my faith. If I died tomorrow and this was all there is…I have no problem with it.
Now…what if I’m right? Can you say the same?
The research I have done has shown me a plethora of evidence to support my faith in the Bible, specifically in recent discoveries by archeologists, scientists, astronomers, and medical science.
If you’re interested in actual research and not just scoffing and feeling superior, I’ll happily provide links or the names of reference books to you so you can study for yourselves.
(Note, by research I mean actual research on your own with an actual Bible and archeological, historical, or scientific texts, not just regurgitation of online articles or bits of verses stuck in someone else’s book or article)
March 24th, 2011 at 1:46 am
Sivonni:
I haven’t read the entire thing. I’ve read large parts of it. I studied it in college.
You’re playing Pascal’s Wager. The logic may appeal to you, but it does not sway the rest of us. We have all considered it and find it unconvincing. If it works for you, though, that’s great. I’m not out to change your mind or take your faith away from you.
The scoffing and superiority only comes out of the frustration of hearing the same tired old arguments over and over; the same flawed logic; the same fake evidence.
I’m always open to seeing new data or new arguments. If you have something that is genuinely different from everything else that is widely available, go ahead. (Be aware that any comment that contains two or more links will automatically end up in the moderation queue. As long as you’re not a spammer, I’ll approve the comment within 12 hours.)
I should warn you that I have already looked at all of the common stuff. It is all flawed. I’m not saying that out of any sort of arrogance about “real science” being superior or any sort of insecurity about my beliefs being challenged. The issue is that all claims have to be supported by evidence. All claims have to be challenged by other scientists and stand up to peer review. All science plays by the same rules.
Every creation “scientist” I’ve ever met has had a complete misunderstanding of the data or the theories or the process of science. Show me something that isn’t flawed by that myopia, and I’ll be happy to consider it.
I’ve read a lot of creationist articles. I’ve been to creationist seminars. I actively seek this stuff out and examine it. So far, it has all fallen short. Very, very short.
But please, if you have something better, I’d love to see it.
Also be aware that there are thousands of Christian sects. Each one interprets the Bible differently. It’s very easy to find a way to make the Bible say what you want it to say. It is very easy to mold it after the fact to fit a set of data. If you claim that science “proves” something in the Bible, it has to be something concrete and unambiguous. If you read the article above, you’ll see how Ken Ham takes a very loose interpretation of a couple of sentences in the Bible and fits it to some scientific statement (and that statement is often taken out of context or completely misrepresented).
March 25th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Drive-by Pascal Wagerers never consider the multitude of ways in which the wager is flawed. It seems that the way in which it reenforces one’s life choice to commit to a religion, yet again, blinds the follower to its fallacies.
The one argument against the wager that I really wish followers would thoughtfully respond to is the “am I following the correct religion” question. The person presenting the wager against a nonbeliever always expresses it as a binary choice — a coin flip. But even playing by the assumptions of the wager, it is not a 50/50 chance. There are countless religions in the world. And I’m not being hyperbolic by saying “countless” because there are many religions there were invented and forgotten with no record of their existence. What if one of those is right?
“Because I have faith so I know” is not a satisfactory response to this problem because it is relies on circular logic.
I won’t bother listing the other many ways Pascal’s Wager is ridiculous. I just want that one scenario honestly answered.
March 26th, 2011 at 7:15 am
I’d like to add that what annoys me about Pascal’s Wager, is that it breeds disingenuousness (is that a word?). Let’s presuppose God thinks in a fairly similar way as we do, and that he is omnipotent. Therefore, he knows when you Truly Believe, and when you’re Faking It. Now, wouldn’t God likely be more annoyed by someone who pretends to Believe just to be part of Club Heaven, than someone who is genuine about their disbelief (especially since there is lack of proof of a God)? I mean, if there was a heaven the disbelievers would probably still be fucked, but the fake ones I would imagine would be just as well.
Perhaps I’m just reading into this too much. I think I’m perhaps projecting a pet peeve of mine onto the God canvas.
March 26th, 2011 at 9:35 am
Pascal’s Wager makes perfect sense to them because it results from then reinforces their binary thought patterns.
March 26th, 2011 at 11:34 am
Lindsay:
That’s my biggest problem with Pascal’s Wager. It’s very cynical. I would think God could see through that.
March 27th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Throw in the name “Jesus” a few times, and this guy could be a fundie “scientist”:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/rogue-scientist-has-own-scientific-method,1976/?utm_source=related
March 30th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Just a minor point: The Big Bang Theory, as the name would denote, is theoretical. So since it is theory, and not established fact, it does not directly ‘discredit’ the mythology of a certain modern-day cult. Rather the Big Bang Theory, IMO is a challenger to the Xtian belief. Personally I think the BBT is superior, as I catalog Genesis in the same section as the giant universe egg, or the world on the back of a turtle, but a theory is still just a theory, and hence conjecture until we can find out for sure what brought about our current state of being. But really, why do we need a ‘begining’. That’s so linear… what if it was always this way, and merely the present state in a continuous ebb and flow that our tiny existence cannot perceive?
March 30th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
@Rivendusk: In science, a theory is the closest thing to fact something can get. Evolution, gravity, relativity, germs– all theories, yet treated as the facts they are. Also, the big bang doesn’t necessarily discredit the belief the universe has always been in existence.
March 31st, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Further, I would say that saying Creationism is a challenger to the Big Bang, with respect to the universe’s origin, is being too kind to Creationism. Creationism has no evidence — none. Neither does the world sitting on the turtle’s back.
The Big Bang model (and related early universe models, like inflation) precisely predict much of how the universe is today down to the quantum level. It’s pretty incredible stuff.
Creationism has no testable mode of action, no supporting evidence, and makes absolutely no predictions! You can pretty much boil it down to “stuff is the way it is due to unknowable invisible untestable forces.”
That’s beyond useless.