Recently Dr. Menton, Dr. Snelling, and I wrote an editorial entitled, “Some scientists also embrace creationism” for the Lexington Herald-Leader in response to another editorial by Robert Guffey, a retired teacher, entitled, “Tax incentives for an evolution museum?” Several atheists have now commented about our piece on their websites, and the paper itself has numerous comments posted in response to our editorial. I thought I would just list a few examples interspersed with my comments to give you a window into the world in which we are doing battle.
PZ Myers in his blog wrote:
The chthonic dingleberries of Answers in Genesis . . .I’ll have to admit I’ve never been called a foolish or inept person from the underworld, but these ad hominem attacks are typical in place of substantive arguments against the science we discuss in our editorial and elsewhere.
Now the people who believe this unscientific nonsense claim to be "serious scientists." I don't think so. They haven't demonstrated that their superstitions are serious science at all; all they've shown is that some few people who are totally nuts can graduate with doctorates.
Two posters questioned our claim to being researchers for AiG:
Did they call themselves researchers there? Does that mean they have some sort of research, some shred of what they're doing other than complementing themselves for reading an old book and basing their world view on it?
plainsman844The AiG website provides full information concerning the institutions from which we received our degrees (see the bios for Dr. Snelling, Dr. Menton, and me). As for published, peer-reviewed research studies based on our current research, here are just a few (many more can be found by visiting our webpages on the AiG website):
Regarding the credentials of these Einsteins, I couldn't help noticing that (1) "somehow" the institutions where they received their degrees isn't listed and (2) since they are now shilling for AIG, they are doing NO actual research in their alleged fields. I would be fascinated to know just how many published, peer-reviewed research studies have these characters names attached to them. Considering how many scientific/historical mistakes and/or outright lies are packed into this short piece, I can guess why they aren't in a real lab doing actual research.
- The Geology of Israel within the Biblical Creation-Flood Framework of History: 2. The Flood Rocks
- Implications of Polonium Radiohalos in Nested Plutons of the Tuolumne Intrusive Suite, Yosemite, California
- The Role of Genomic Islands, Mutation, and Displacement in the Origin of Bacterial Pathogenicity
- Analysis of Barry Hall’s Research of the E. coli ebg Operon
- Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2
Rick_KThe Word of God is not a book of stories; it is a book of history regarding the past, starting with the beginning of time and ending with prophecies about the future and the end of time. Christ Himself spoke of Genesis as history (Matthew 19:4–5 and Mark 10:6). Many of the New Testament writers wrote about the importance of the history of the OT, especially Genesis, as foundational for the history of the NT (1 Corinthians 15:22 and 1 Peter 3:20). By starting with the Word of God as the ultimate authority, we have the correct foundation for our scientific research, which will lead to correct conclusions about the past—and when we enter into the presence of Jesus, we will hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant” (Matthew 25:21).
David Menton, Andrew Snelling and Georgia Perdom - if Jesus were alive today, he would tell you to open your eyes to the wonderful stories we can now understand because we understand so much more about the natural world than the people in his day. He would then shake his head sadly and give you a sermon on the dangers of hubris and greed. Shame on you. Not only are you sell-outs as scientists, but you're poor Christians as well.
Please continue to stand on the authority of God’s Word in everything and pray for us as we continue to fight the battle for truth.