Don’t Creationists Believe Some “Wacky” Things?

Nearly every time I bring up biblical creation whether I’m talking with skeptics, critics, or even some Christians, I’m met with raised eyebrows (and some version of “you must be joking!”) and then accused of believing in all sorts of bizarre and “wacky” things.1 Apparently, standing on God’s Word makes you a walking cartoon character. And no, I’m not the only one getting this treatment. Biblical creationists today are frequently ridiculed as anti-science/anti-intellectual/anti-reality, simply for treating the Bible as what it claims to be: the true history of the universe and the ultimate authority in every area.

Of course, these kinds of responses come from people who’ve never taken the time to understand what creationists believe. Instead, they’ve just bought into the silly memes and straw man arguments being promoted on the internet and social media. But once you get past all the jokes and look into what we believe, you’ll find that our views are not only biblically sound but scientifically reasonable. In fact, many of the so-called “wacky” things we believe are only seen that way because we start from a different foundation: God’s Word—not man’s ever-changing opinions.

Let’s take a look at 10 common “wacky” claims made against biblical creationists and see just how quickly they fall apart when held up to Scripture, logic, and just a little bit of critical thinking.2

Claim #1: “You Still Believe the Earth Is Flat, Right?!”

This is by far the most common claim I hear from critics, which has resurfaced in recent years, thanks to conspiracy videos and social media echo chambers. To make matters worse, they’re not completely wrong (to some extent). There are some fringe individuals who genuinely believe the Bible teaches a flat earth. But they’re the exception, not the rule. The majority of creationists are not flat-earthers. Simply put, the Bible—rightly interpreted—does not teach a flat earth.3

In fact, some of the strongest opponents of the modern flat-earth movement are biblical creationists! For instance, we (Answers in Genesis) have written multiple articles and published lengthy videos dismantling many of the popular flat-earth arguments. In short, we oppose the idea and have shown it to be both unbiblical and unscientific.4

Here’s another popular myth that falls flat: the idea that medieval Christians universally believed in a flat earth. Many Bible-believing flat-earthers don’t realize that this fabrication was invented in the nineteenth century by atheist skeptics trying to make the church look anti-science and discredit the Bible. (Many Christians at the time didn’t push back, and some even wore that myth like a badge of honor!) In fact, most educated people throughout history—including many of the early church leaders and Reformation scholars—understood that the earth is round.5

In fact, most educated people throughout history—including many of the early church leaders and Reformation scholars—understood that the earth is round.

So here’s the bottom line: Biblical creation has nothing to do with flat-earth conspiracy theories. It’s important we distinguish biblical creation from fringe pseudoscience. The belief that the earth is about 6,000 years old based on Scripture does not equate to denying basic observable facts like the shape of our planet. As creationists, we don’t deny what God has clearly revealed in both his Word and his world. So if you’re lumping us in with flat-earthers, it’s time to reconsider your sources. Are you shaping your beliefs on internet conspiracies or on the clarity of Scripture and observable science?

Claim #2: “Why Do You Guys Hate Science?!”

This is one of the most damaging, false, and lazy misconceptions about biblical creationists. People who make this claim haven’t done their homework. They assume if you reject evolution and millions of years, then you must also reject science itself, and thus reject modern technology, medicine, space exploration, and so on. (As if believing in Genesis means throwing your smartphone in the garbage and renouncing technology altogether!) But nothing could be further from the truth.

In reality, creationists love science and are actively involved in it. Many of us hold advanced degrees in fields such as biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, astronomy, and engineering.6 We build rockets, design satellites, develop medical treatments, and conduct serious research (and yes, we even use calculators!) all to honor God and explore his creation.7

And we’re not alone! In fact, we’re standing on the shoulders of giants: Bible-believing scientists who laid the foundation for modern science in the first place. Ever heard of men like Sir Isaac Newton (gravity, calculus), Michael Faraday (electromagnetism), James Prescott Joule (thermodynamics), Galileo Galilei (astronomy), Johannes Kepler (planetary motion), or Francis Bacon (scientific method)? And yes, we could keep going with more names, but I think you get the point.8

And no, these men weren’t skeptics—they were Christians who dedicated their lives to studying creation. Why? Because they knew it was made by a rational Creator. They didn’t discover laws of nature because the universe was random—they discovered them because they believed God upholds the universe in a consistent and orderly way (e.g., Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17). In other words, laws of nature are descriptions of how God consistently upholds the universe, which these men discovered and sought to further understand. (By the way, that’s why science flourished under a Christian worldview, not an atheistic one!)

But here’s where the confusion often comes in: Not all science is the same. There are two main categories: operational science (the kind that’s observable, testable, and repeatable—which puts rockets in orbit, a smartphone in your pocket, and medicine in your cabinet) and historical science (the kind that tries to reconstruct the unobservable past based on assumptions).9 We fully embrace operational science. It’s the “here and now” science that both Christians and atheists can agree on and use to build bridges, fly airplanes, and treat diseases—using the same scientific principles.10

The difference? It’s our starting point: We begin with God’s Word, not human assumptions or opinions. So where we differ is in how certain evidence about the unobservable past is interpreted. Why? Because your worldview will always shape your conclusions! Yet too often (even by Christians), the data are filtered through the “lens” of man’s fallible word rather than God’s infallible Word. Whereas if we build our thinking on God’s Word starting from the very first verse, we see the same data differently than someone who starts with man’s ideas about the past. That’s the real issue here, not science itself but the worldview driving the conclusions.

That is, we don’t reject historical science itself. Rather, we challenge the assumptions that drive it, especially when they’re rooted in the religion of naturalism.

That is, we don’t reject historical science itself. Rather, we challenge the assumptions that drive it, especially when they’re rooted in the religion of naturalism.11 So when people claim that “science proves the big bang, molecules-to-man evolution, and millions of years . . .” the only thing it proves is that they really don’t know what they’re talking about or even understand how science works. Instead, what they actually mean is this: “Our interpretation of the evidence—based on naturalistic assumptions—leads us to those conclusions.” In other words, the evidence “doesn’t speak for itself.” (And if it does talk to you, then you should probably seek help!)

So no, we’re not anti-science. If anything, we’re anti–bad science. And when science is done right, it consistently confirms the truth of God’s Word. So what foundation are you standing on: the solid rock of God’s Word (which makes science possible) or the shifting sands of man’s opinions?

Claim #3: “So You Deny That the Climate Is Changing?!”

Critics will sometimes follow up with this silly claim, saying that we deny climate change altogether and that we enjoy destroying our planet. That’s a straw man. Creationists don’t deny that the climate changes today, or that it has in the past, and we’re not gas-guzzling maniacs who hate the earth.

Of course, we observe changing weather patterns and climate trends, but what we challenge are the assumptions behind this climate-alarmism religion permeating the culture and the belief that the world is on the brink of collapse (“one plastic straw away from doomsday!”) unless we adopt radical political agendas.12 We don’t bow to climate hysteria and the panic-driven, man-centered narrative that says it’s all unprecedented and entirely our fault. That’s where we tap the brakes.

Why? Because when you start with the Bible, climate change isn’t surprising at all. In fact, it’s expected! Major changes have occurred after the flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6–9). And no, this event wasn’t a local rainstorm somewhere in the Middle East. It was a worldwide event that reshaped the whole earth’s surface, drastically altered the climate, and triggered the ice age (an aftereffect of the flood).13 And so, ignoring that catastrophic event means building a climate model on the wrong foundation.

Plus, biblically speaking, God commands us to be good stewards of his creation, not to exploit it or worship it. So we support efforts that promote responsible care for the planet.14 And we can rest assured that we’re not going to destroy the earth. God has promised “while the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22).

Also, here’s something else to consider: From an atheistic (naturalistic/materialistic) worldview, why care about the planet at all? If we’re just rearranged pond scum on a dying rock in the universe and everything is headed toward eventual heat death anyway, why sacrifice anything at all for the sake of future generations? Who cares? But from a biblical worldview, we care for the earth because it belongs to God, and we care for people because they’re made in his image.

The real “climate change” that every person should be concerned about is still coming—when Jesus returns to judge the world by fire (2 Peter 3). And so, in a way, climate alarmists are right about one thing: Humans are indeed the cause of this coming catastrophic judgment event. Because of our sin in Adam, the whole creation is groaning and awaiting to be made new (Romans 8:20–22).

But until then, we’re called to keep doing the King’s business—proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world (Matthew 28:18–20; Mark 16:15–16)—so that those who repent and trust in Christ will receive the gift of eternal life and escape the day of judgment to come. Are you ready for that day?

Claim #4: “You Don’t Believe in Evolution, so You Deny Mutations and Natural Selection Too?!”

This one usually comes from a simple misunderstanding of what biblical creationists actually believe. We affirm the reality of both mutations and natural selection—we just don’t believe these processes can turn molecules into men over millions of years.

This claim also stems from a major category error (a logical fallacy): confusing observable science with speculative storytelling about the unobservable past. There’s a big difference between recognizing processes in the present, like studying mutations in a lab, and accepting naturalistic religious beliefs about the past, such as Darwinian evolution. So the issue isn’t whether these processes exist (they do), the issue is what they can—and cannot—accomplish.

Let’s start with mutations. In short, these are changes in the DNA sequence. They’re very real and well-studied in genetic research. But most are harmful and can cause cancer or inherited diseases. And the rare “beneficial” mutations involve a loss of information (like bacteria surviving antibiotics by losing the ability to absorb them). That’s not evolution—it’s a defect that happens to have a survival advantage in a very specific setting.15

What about natural selection? That’s also very real. In fact, creationists wrote about it before Darwin even did!16 Natural selection is the process where certain traits become more common because they help organisms survive better in a certain environment. But here’s the key: Natural selection can only act on existing genetic information—it cannot create anything new. None! It can only shuffle, filter, or remove that already-existing information.

So yes, biblical creationists fully accept mutations and natural selection. But these don’t explain how new kinds of animals came into existence. Instead, they actually line up with the biblical model: God created distinct kinds of creatures (Genesis 1) with built-in genetic diversity. And that variation only occurs within those kinds, meaning you’ll never see one kind evolve into another.17 So natural selection and mutations can account for variation within a kind, but not the generation of any new information-rich genetic material that “fish-to-philosopher” evolution requires.

Plus, when we step back and look at the big picture, we clearly see that these processes don’t improve the genome over time—they degrade it—and that’s what we’d expect in a sin-cursed/broken world affected by the fall (Genesis 3; Romans 8). So while secularists see these as the supposed “engines” of evolution, we see them as part of a world that’s groaning under the weight of sin, waiting to be redeemed. Are you still trusting a broken world to explain life or the God who gave you life?

Claim #5: “You Think the Grand Canyon Was Made in a Week?!”

This is often meant to mock creationists as ignorant buffoons who reject geology itself, but it misrepresents what we actually believe. We don’t say that the Grand Canyon formed in the seven days during creation week or that it just magically appeared overnight. No, we’re arguing that it was formed rapidly—not over millions of years—as a result of the global flood.

But here’s what the critics miss: It’s not about the data itself—it’s about the “lens” we all use to interpret that same data. That is, secular geologists interpret the Grand Canyon through the lens of uniformitarianism (the secular belief that slow gradual processes over long ages formed what we see today), whereas creationists view the same evidence through the lens of catastrophism (the biblical belief that rapid large-scale events like the Genesis flood shaped the earth’s features). So we’re not rejecting geology—we’re challenging the assumptions behind the interpretation of the data. And when viewed through a biblical lens, the Grand Canyon makes a lot more sense.

The retreating waters of the flood would’ve had the scale and power to carve something as massive as the Grand Canyon in a relatively short period of time.

Take Mount St. Helens, for example. In 1980, a single volcanic eruption formed deep canyons and layered rock in just a matter of hours and days!18 This event showed that geological features don’t require millions of years—it just takes the right catastrophic conditions! So in a similar way, the retreating waters of the flood would’ve had the scale and power to carve something as massive as the Grand Canyon in a relatively short period of time.19

Not to mention, the Grand Canyon itself practically screams of rapid formation:

• Flat, widespread rock layers (consistent with rapid deposition)
• Minimal erosion between layers (contrary to what you’d expect over millions of years)
• Geologic layers that match those across continents (exactly what you’d expect from a global catastrophe)
• Bending that shows multiple layers were still pliable and were deformed at the same time

Again, the Genesis flood was a violent, yearlong event of unprecedented scale that reshaped the whole earth. So when we start our thinking with the Bible’s history, we don’t need millions of years to explain the Grand Canyon—we just need the right conditions. And the flood, as described in Genesis, provides exactly those conditions. Are you trusting in man’s “slow-and-gradual” storytelling or the eyewitness account of the greatest geologic event in history?

Claim #6: “You Think Humans Rode on Dinosaurs like the Flintstones?!”

Yes, believe it or not, I’ve heard this ridiculous claim more times than I’d like. It’s basically a favorite among skeptics who enjoy mocking creationists, trying to paint a cartoonish image of cavemen brutes riding dinosaurs. (Or some even go as far as mocking Jesus, saying that he rode dinosaurs around Israel, which is completely absurd.20) But beneath all the mockery is the real question at the heart of the matter: Did dinosaurs and humans live at the same time? If we think biblically, yes.

Of course, while we don’t claim that people saddled up theropod dinosaurs and rode them like horses, we do believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted (just as people once lived alongside other now-extinct animals like mammoths and saber-tooth cats). Why? Because if we start with the historical account of Genesis 1, it says that God created every kind of land animal—including dinosaurs—and man on day six of creation week. So that puts humans and dinosaurs created together, side-by-side in history, not separated by millions of years as claimed by secularists.21

And in Genesis 6, God commands Noah to take every kind of land animal on the ark—again, including dinosaurs.22 And no, they weren’t all humongous, door-blocking creatures (as often shown with the silly cartoons of a large sauropod-like dinosaur that gets stuck in the ark’s doorway). The average dinosaur was about the size of a bison, and many were the size of chickens. Only a handful of dinosaur kinds grew to enormous sizes we often picture (like Brachiosaurus or T. Rex). Plus, even for those larger dinosaurs, God likely brought the young juveniles to Noah, not fully grown adults, since even the largest ones had to start off small.23

Dinosaurs likely struggled in the harsh post-flood world (facing climate change, habitat loss, human hunting, and other factors), leading to their extinction. And yes, there are good reasons to believe post-flood humans encountered dinosaurs. Cultures around the world have legends of large, reptilelike beasts—called dragons—with descriptions that are remarkably similar to dinosaurs, including ancient artwork that depicts these animals with clear dinosaur features. Not to mention, before the word dinosaur was coined in 1841, dragons were considered real creatures, representing the collective (though exaggerated) memories of post-flood dinosaurs.24

So no, we don’t believe in Flintstone-like fantasies. We start our thinking on the Bible—the true history book of the universe—and believe these incredible creatures that we call dinosaurs were part of God’s very good creation and lived alongside humans for much of history. Are you scoffing at this truth because of childish cartoons or because you’re in rebellion against the God who defines truth?

Claim #7: “You Actually Believe in Talking Animals?!”

This one’s a favorite among those looking to mock the Bible as nothing more than a book of fairy tales. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard people laugh and say something like, “You actually believe in talking snakes and donkeys? Really?! What’s next, are you going to tell me that the Three Little Pigs and the Big Bad Wolf were real too?!” In their minds, if you take the Bible seriously, you must be one step away from some Disney fairy-tale land.

Yes, the Bible does record a few rare instances of animals speaking but not in the sense of children’s bedtime stories. So here’s the key to understand: The Bible isn’t claiming that animals naturally talk or that the ancient world was full of magical chatty critters. These were supernatural events that were rare, specific, and purposeful. We’ll look at the two popular examples that critics like to bring up.

The first is in Genesis 3, when the serpent (Satan speaking through it) deceives Eve in the garden.25 And Scripture later reveals in Revelation 12:9 that Satan—a real spiritual being—used the serpent as a mouthpiece to deceive Eve.26 So no, this wasn’t a random snake giving some bad life advice nor was it some part in a Disney musical. This was a supernatural act of deception—Satan twisting God’s words to lead man into sin, leading to the fall, and introducing death and suffering into the world.

The second is in Numbers 22, when God miraculously opened Balaam’s donkey’s mouth to rebuke the prophet’s foolishness. And no, this was not a fairy-tale Shrek moment—it was a one-time, supernatural intervention for a very specific purpose. The donkey didn’t just suddenly “evolve” the power of speech—it was a divine act to get the attention of a stubborn man who was ignoring God’s warnings. (And it worked!)

So the main point here is not that animals like donkeys can normally talk, but that God miraculously intervened for a specific purpose. And if someone has a problem with that, then their real issue is with the God of the Bible—the one who created the universe out of nothing, parted the Red Sea, shut the mouths of lions, and raises the dead. Talking animals are only a problem if you’ve already ruled out the miraculous and have decided to limit God to your own imagination. But if God is truly all-powerful (as the Bible clearly teaches) then making an animal speak is hardly a stretch.

Now here’s the real irony: While they laugh at the idea of talking animals in the Bible, evolutionists believe that speech “evolved” in humans—who are supposedly highly advanced animals—over long periods through mindless unguided processes. So apparently, as long as you take God out of the equation, it’s not crazy to believe animals can talk. But once you insert an all-powerful Creator who acts with purpose, then suddenly it’s “fairy-tale nonsense!” That’s called a double standard.

So no, we don’t believe in fairy-tale “talking animal” bedtime stories. But we do believe in a sovereign Creator who occasionally uses his creation in miraculous ways to accomplish his will. And when he speaks, even a donkey listens! Are you too proud to listen to your Creator’s Word?

Claim #8: “You Say Cain Married His Sister, so You Promote Incest?!”

Nearly every time I answer the question regarding Cain’s wife, critics love to bring up this one, basically saying: “Wait, are you really saying that Cain married his sister?! You’re promoting incest! That’s immoral!” But as usual, the critic just hasn’t done his homework and misses the biblical context and what was actually happening in those earliest generations.

Yes, Genesis teaches that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and all people descended from them (Genesis 3:20), which means brothers had to marry sisters or close relatives in the earliest generations. (Otherwise, there would be no human race!) So it wasn’t a moral problem at the time but rather a necessity to fulfill God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).

But why was it permissible then, and why is it wrong now? Here’s the simple answer: genetic decay. In a perfect original creation (Genesis 1:31), Adam’s and Eve’s genes were free from defects, so their early descendants could marry close relatives without the risk of genetic problems. But after generations in a sin-cursed world, mutations accumulate. And by the time of Moses, God gave the law forbidding close-relative marriage (Leviticus 18) since such unions now would risk passing on harmful mutations.

But let’s take a step back and ask: Can an atheist even make this claim? Critics who reject the Bible have no objective standard to call anything “immoral” whatsoever. In an evolutionary worldview, why would incest—or any behavior—be wrong at all? For the atheist, there is no foundation at all for morality besides his own subjective opinion. Simply put, autonomous human reason does not provide a foundation for morality. You need an objective standard—and that standard is God and his Word.

So no, biblical creationists aren’t promoting incest. We start with God’s unchanging Word, not shifting human opinion, explaining early history as it happened that’s in-line with both Scripture and genetic science. So what’s your moral standard and can it consistently call anything right or wrong?

Claim #9: “Why Are You Checking Your Brain at the Door and Ignoring Simple Logic and Reasoning?!”

This stupid claim gets thrown around all the time, especially on social media by uneducated atheists. The critics I’ve encountered like to say that we’re just “simple-minded fools who shut off their brains and choose blind faith over logic and reasoning”! But nothing could be further from the truth. Ironically, it’s quite the opposite! In reality, it’s the Christian who has a confident, reasonable faith—it’s the atheist who must rely on blind faith to make sense of anything at all.

So the question is not whether you have faith but what your faith is in.

Here’s the key: Every worldview starts with faith in something. (It’s inescapable!) So the question is not whether you have faith but what your faith is in. And it’s this fundamental truth that critics tend to ignore. So it’s not “faith versus reason”—it’s which foundation makes reason possible in the first place. Again, everyone has a starting point. Ours is God’s authoritative, inerrant, infallible Word. The atheist’s starting point is faith in fallible human reasoning, naturalism, and the belief that matter/energy is all that exists.

But our faith isn’t a “blind” faith. It’s a reasonable faith that’s grounded in the unchanging character of God. Why does this matter? Because if the Bible weren’t true, you couldn’t even make sense of logic, reason, or science in the first place. Think about it, from an atheistic worldview:

• Why would immaterial, universal, invariant laws of logic exist?
• Why would human brains—firing random chemical reactions—produce reliable thoughts?
• Why would the universe be orderly, predictable, and understandable?

Atheism cannot account for these things, no matter how hard one might try. Take for example, logic, which is not material. How does a materialistic atheist who denies the immaterial realm account for the laws of logic? He can’t. Given his worldview, there’s no basis for logic to exist. And if the thoughts in all our brains are just the product of random evolutionary processes, how can the atheist even trust his own thoughts are true?27 Again, he can’t.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that atheists can’t think or use logic correctly. But when they do, they instead have to borrow from the biblical worldview, relying on things like logic, reason, and order—while at the same time denying the God who makes them possible. That’s like sitting in God’s lap to slap him in the face.28

However, because all people are made in God’s image and live in God’s created world, they can’t escape relying on these basic absolutes he built into creation. That means every time atheists use logic, reasoning, or science, they’re the ones operating on blind faith—and the ones who must “check their brain at the door” when believing in their atheism.

Meanwhile, the biblical worldview makes sense of reality. A rational Creator made an orderly universe and designed humans in his image to think, reason, and discover. And that’s why science flourished not under atheism—but under Christianity—because believers expected the world to be intelligible. So here’s how I like to put it: “A good reason for my faith is that my faith makes reason possible!”29

So no, we don’t reject logic or reasoning—we depend on them. And we can trust that they work only because the Bible is true! So faith in God’s Word is not blind. Rather, it’s a confident faith based on the character of the one who knows everything, always tells the truth, and promises to uphold the universe by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3). We ultimately trust God not because of what we’ve seen but because of what he’s told us in his Word (Hebrews 11:1). So then the real contrast is not “faith versus reason”—if anything, it’s really this: blind faith of atheism versus objective faith of Christianity. What’s your faith in: blind chance or the God who makes reasoning possible?

Claim #10: “You Take the Whole Bible Literally, so You Think Jesus Was a Literal Door?!”

Whenever I hear this one (often with a condescending smirk from the critic), it’s usually meant to make biblical creationists look hopelessly naive in our thinking, basically saying: “You really take every part of the Bible literally? So I guess you think Jesus was a wooden door with hinges too, huh?!” And sadly, even some Christians parrot this as well, as if taking the Bible so “literally” in every part is something we should be embarrassed about.

But of course, that’s not the real issue here. It isn’t whether we take everything “literally” but whether we take the Bible seriously enough to treat it as our ultimate authority in all areas (2 Corinthians 4:2; 2 Timothy 2:15). And no, that’s not some “blind literalism”—it’s trusting the one who was there, knows all things, and has spoken clearly to us.

We don’t apply a flat “wooden” literalism across the board. We recognize that the Bible contains different genres (history, poetry, prophecy, parables, apocalyptic imagery, and so on) and interpret each part in its proper context.30 So when Jesus says, “I am the door,” no one pictures him as a plank of wood with hinges and a doorknob. That’s clearly a metaphor, and it’s obviously meant to be taken that way.

What about Genesis 1–11? It’s clearly written as historical narrative. The text presents the six days of creation, a real Adam and Eve, the fall, genealogies, a global flood, and the tower of Babel—all written as straightforward history. There’s no indication whatsoever that it’s allegory or poetry.31 And when Jesus and the apostles referred to Genesis, did they treat it as myth or parable? No, they treated it as real history, and we should too.

So yes, we take Genesis as literal history because it was meant to be taken that way. And no, this is not just a side issue. Key Christian doctrines (including sin, death, marriage, redemption, etc.) are all grounded in Genesis 1–11. For instance, consider this: If Adam weren’t a real man, then what do we make of Jesus, the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15)? Or another way to put it: If Genesis were a mythological story, then Jesus died for a mythological problem, so he’s a mythological Savior, who offers a mythological hope for the future. See the issue? Yes, the gospel itself depends on the truth of Genesis!

Here’s the bottom line: If the Bible isn’t your final authority, something else will be. And that something will always be man’s fallible opinions—which constantly change like shifting sands. Boil it all down, it’s either God’s Word or man’s word. Because if it doesn’t come from God, then one way or another, it comes from the mind of man (this is called humanism). There’s no neutral ground. Period.

And yet, the Christians who mock us for “taking the Bible so literally” are the ones importing man-made ideas (like evolution or millions of years) into the text. They start with man’s shifting ideas about origins and then try to reinterpret Scripture to fit those beliefs. That’s called syncretism—mixing biblical truth with secular beliefs—and when that happens, something always has to give. And in this case, it’s Genesis that ends up getting compromised. We’d rather stand on the unchanging, solid rock of God’s Word. Do you?

Who’s Really the “Wacky” One?

In the end, when you examine these so-called “wacky” claims, whether it’s flat earth, anti-science, or dino-riding humans, you quickly realize how easily these myths fall apart. Most are either ridiculous misrepresentations or flow from the wrong foundation: man’s fallible opinions instead of God’s infallible truth.

Yes, we unashamedly believe what the Bible teaches—that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, that Adam and Eve were real, that death came through sin, and that the global flood was a real event in history—just as Genesis plainly tells us. And we also believe in logic, reason, and science, which only make sense in a world created and upheld by a rational, faithful, consistent Creator.

But here’s what’s truly wacky: believing in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything, that the universe is guided by mindless processes, that life arose from nonlife, that moral standards evolved from meaningless molecules, and that logic and science just happen to exist in a random chance universe. That’s not science—that’s blind faith in nothing.

So no, biblical creationists aren’t the wacky ones. We’re trusting the eyewitness account of the God who never lies and who gave us his Word. And far from being a side issue, what we believe about Genesis directly affects how we understand sin, redemption, and our need for Jesus Christ.32

And maybe you’re a biblical creationist who’s heard these kinds of wacky claims. If so, don’t be discouraged. The next time people scoff or roll their eyes at you, graciously respond—with gentleness and respect—and challenge them with this one key question: Whose foundation actually makes sense of reality and who’s the one really believing in “wacky” stuff?

And always remember: “In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame” (1 Peter 3:15–16).