Re: Back to Genesis #1: Bishop or Bible? A Question of Authority [Part II]

I am continuing my response to an article called “Bishop or Bible? A Question of Authority” written by Ken Ham for the ICR’s “Back to Genesis” series.

Claim #11: How many different dinosaurs were there? Secular books on dinosaurs give the idea that there were hundreds of different kinds of dinosaurs. Children are indoctrinated to believe that these hundreds of different types of dinosaurs lived during the dinosaur age millions of years ago. Thus, they are led to believe that evolution is true and the Biblical account of creation wrong.

You’re just equating your own interpretations with God’s again. Whatever happened to Christian humility and quaking in awe before God? And you’re denial of the sheer vastness of known dinosaurs is pathetic. Anyone can check out the Wikipedia article on the subject themselves and call your bluff.

Claim #12: However, one begins to lose faith in “science falsely so called” when a careful dinosaur investigation is made.

I think it should be noted that the science falsely so-called verse is from the King James version. It does not refer to the modern institution of science where nature is learned about by observation and experimentation, but rather all types of false knowledge. Note also that other non-KJV bible translations are used in this article. With this Ken Ham is taking advantage of the wording in different translations in order to twist the Bible into fitting his own preconceived ideas.

Not to mention that the science falsely so-called argument is listed in the Answers in Genesis’s “Arguments that Should Not be used Against Evolution” article. Good thing creation scientists are upright moral Christians who would never abuse Scripture when it’s convenient but tell others not to do the same thing just to put up a false front. Hypocrites!

Claim #13: Paleontology should be doubted because new dinosaur species are sometimes described on the basis of fragmentary evidence.

This objection is easily refutable by someone acquainted with paleontology, even if they are only acquainted enough to call it a hobby. Since most people arent even this familiar with the science, Ill instead turn to an analogy from an area of wider reaching appeal: cars. I admit to not being interested in cars myself, but its common sense that you can determine the make or model of a car based on the construction of certain parts. Thus if a knowledgeable mechanic looks at a part he can say, Thats a Ford, or Thats a Mercedes. Its the same way with paleontologists attempting to classify fossils.

To a layman a spark plug is a sparkplug, and to a layman a dromaeosaur tooth and tyrannosaur tooth probably look the same as well. However to an expert, a tooth can almost always be narrowed down to the family level, and sometimes even straight down to species level classification. Thus if a tooth is distinct enough, it would appear to not belong in any known group, and since this tooth is obviously real, and not a hoax on the part of Satan as some people have tried to convince me, it means that it belongs in a category all its own- it is the first known fossil of a previously unknown organism deserving a new binomial.

Claim #14: Paleontology should be doubted because paleontologists sometimes misclassify fossils.

This should hardly be surprising, considering that if creationists are right human reasoning can’t be used to discover truth! Despite this “fact” creationists expect scientists to know the truth about everything all the time with one hundred percent accuracy, while we’re supposed to overlook dozens of hoaxes that have been used to advance creationism, right? Looks like creationists have double standards.

Obviously scientists make mistakes on occasion in identifying fossils. This isn’t to say that they don’t know what they’re doing, however. I’ll return to the automobile analogy. Perhaps a certain type of piston is used primarily used in one model of car. If a piston is discovered that closely resembles it, a mechanic might be forgiven in his misidentification, right? Shouldn’t it be the same with scientists?

They are usually able to classify animals by obscure materials, but creationists don’t talk much about the successes, do they? No, they like to point out the occasion or two when a dinosaur known only by vertebrae is misclassified. Id ask the creationists if they could classify species any better, but since species are just variations within a kind, I doubt they feel a need to give them accurate classifications although they think evolutionists should be required to do this flawlessly.

Claim #15: Supersaurus is possibly a diploma docid (page 119).

There is no such thing as a diploma docid. He is probably referring to the term “diplodocid,” which refers to dinosaurs in the family diplodocidae. Examples of diplodocids include Dicraeosaurus, Apatosaurus (aka “Brontosaurus”), Diplodicus, Barosaurus, Supersaurus and Amphicoelias (this list was roughly in order from smallest to biggest). I dont know why he should even write this here, Supersaurus has been considered a diplodicid from day one as far as I know, its not a big surprise or anything. Except to creationists, I guess.

Claim #16: ICR has some excellent books

Shameless plug. And a lie as well.

Claim #17: This will involve hands on experiments for parents to help them develop skills to teach their children how to understand science from a Christian basis

What? Christian basis? Science and Christianity have nothing to do with each other. Science is done by observation, formation of a hypothesis, experimentation etc.

None of those require, or can be done effectively when you base your research on supernatural assumptions. One can be a “Christian scientist,” but doing “Christian science” is impossible because of the very nature and philosophy of science. Basically what’s happening here is people are being indoctrinated to view science from the assumptions and presuppositions of the ICR, and to base their research and results on this false foundation. And we all know what happens to house not built on sturdy foundations!

Another shameless plug for some seminar.

Claim #18: A wombats pouch could not evolve to face backwards.

A user who knows more about the mutative processs and genetics than me posted a response to this claim on Talk.Origins. Here is what he wrote:

A Talk.Origins poster wrote:
Evidence of the migration of features (ex: the movement of a whales nostrils from its face to the top of its head) do exist in transitional forms. In a recent article by Gould, he discusses a case of inversion where in earlier forms the gut is below the nerve chord, and later cases above. (Or it may be a mouth moving from ventral to dorsal.) Its very likely that the pouch of the wombat developed as follows:

a) Due to unexpressed mutations, the genetic potential for an inverted pouch develops, but is supressed by some of the genes which control embryonic
development.

b) A mutation changes the controling genes, allowing the pouch to develop in an inverted manner. Many quick, or even single generation changes are do[sic] to changes in genes which either cause or hinder the expression of features during fetal development, or which change the rate of development. For instance, the major differences between the skull shapes of various dog breeds is largely due to where in the path of skeletal development the breed halts. All puppies tend to have flat, broad faces. In some breeds the skull elongates more than in others. I suspect that the marsupial pouch embryonically either starts out as a tube open on both ends or attached at one end, but not the sides, and then becomes attached during fetal maturation. One of the problems with traditional natural selection is that, until recent advances in genetics, all change was seen as bit by bit, and gradual. (Even Punk-Eeek is gradual, just faster. (i.e, 100s of generations vs. 10s of thousands.) With the realization that profound morphological differences can result from small changes in some of the genes governing fetal development, its possible that a massive change can take place within a few generations. (Given an isolated population.) Take corn for example. Most of the wild relatives have their ears where a corns tassels are, and vice versa. A single gene controls this. In fact, domestic corn occasional mutates into this form. (cf. Natural History, sometime within the past six months.)

Speculative? Yes, but at least it has some basis in facts, unlike Ham’s mere proclamation that such a feature could never evolve.

Claim #19: “Did you know that the domestic dogs, fox, coyote, wolf, colishe [I can't find much info on this], jackal , fennec, and dingo could be the descendants of a single mating pair of dog-like creatures? If this is the case, Noah would have only needed a pair representing the dog “kind” on board the
Ark that would eventually give rise to the large number of varieties”

Maybe I would believe this if some evidence was cited. But it seems like creationists don’t like to provide evidence for their claims. Maybe since ICR is the
Chosen ministry raised up to spearhead Christianity they don’t have to justify themselves to us mere mortals.

Claim #20: This is variation within a kind, not evolution.

Any change in the gene pool of an organism over time is evolution. So yes, multiple species evolving from one common ancestor is evolution. The idea of species coming from common ancestors is the very basis of the idea of evolution. What is being said here amounts to “this is evolution, not evolution!”

Claim #21: Noah needed only the representative kinds of all the air breathing land dwelling animals.

Actually he would have needed representative fish too if the flood was global. Rain water is fresh and such a large and rapid change in salinity like a global flood would be too much for most fish to take. The Noachian Flood as described by creationists would have emptied our oceans of fish. And dont forget plants. If the Flood was able to carve out the
Grand Canyon rapidly, what effect do you think it would have on the worlds forests? How about the thin layer of topsoil needed by people to grow their crops? Can you honestly say that it would carve out the Grand Canyon, yet leave topsoil unaffected, ready for Noah and his kids to start tilling? Puh-leeze!

Well, thats all I have to say for BtG #1. I’d appreciate to hear your thoughts. See ya.