We’re happy to report that Moss starts off with our Creation Museum, accurately listing the basic facts (70,000 square feet; designed by a former Universal Studios visionary, etc.). While Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum doesn’t represent all of “Creationdom,” we are nonetheless glad to be identified as a difference-making creation ministry.
Disappointingly, Moss doesn’t do so well when it comes to Christian perspectives on evolution.
“Creationism has surprisingly little difficulty accommodating dinosaurs,” Moss declares in response to a model T. rex at the Genesis Expo, and we’re certainly glad he’s noticed. Some evolutionists seem to think dinosaurs are a “gotcha” issue for creationists, while many Christians fret unnecessarily over how to “fit” dinosaurs with the Bible. Moss even correctly states the creationist view of dinosaurs without any ridicule (though he points out the evolutionist perspective as well).
Disappointingly, Moss doesn’t do so well when it comes to Christian perspectives on evolution. “Almost all Christians used to go along with the idea that Genesis was a bit suspect on dates, and that the six days of the Bible were metaphorical,” he writes, crediting the seminal The Genesis Flood for turning things around. While that book did help unify and rally creationists—a definite spark for the modern young-Earth creation movement—it isn’t accurate that “almost all” Christians went along with compromise on Genesis. More precisely, there were many who trusted God and Genesis as written, but they didn’t have access to the wealth of scientific and theological resources we have today that support a recent creation. Genesis Expo curator Ross Rosevear refers to pre–Genesis Flood creationists as “voices in the wilderness.”
Moss errs again when he claims, “If you believe in young-Earth creationism . . . virtually all existing science has to be rewritten.” Actually, most fields of observational science (those that work with repeatable experiments, describing the way things are today, etc.) are no different for creationists. It is only in the questionable areas of science dealing with purported history—cosmology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, etc.—that the disagreement arises. Even then, we don’t see ourselves as “rewriting” science; rather, creation scientists are continuing to expand knowledge based on our starting point of God’s Word.
Some of the creationist ideas Moss lists (propounded by Rosevear) are not biblically necessary, however, and are just a few of many hypotheses within creation science. For instance, Rosevear claims the speed of light has changed, which is one of several creation models explaining distant starlight. Likewise, Moss reports the idea that dinosaurs went extinct because “they couldn’t adapt to the fall in oxygen levels that followed the Flood.” Again, this is only one particular model within creation science that is neither proven nor biblically necessary.
“The theories are at best antediluvian, at worst absurd,” Moss continues, “so creationists feel more comfortable picking generalized holes in Darwinian thinking.” Hold on a second—is he familiar with the creation scholarship published in the Answers Research Journal? While one role of creationists (and News to Note, while we’re on the topic) is to respond to alleged “proofs” of Darwinism, we also have the complementary role of learning how creation reflects God and the history of the Bible.
“Most scientists believe in evolution because they believe that most scientists believe in evolution.”
- Edwards: “Most scientists believe in evolution because they believe that most scientists believe in evolution.”
- White: “They’ve got proof of change within species. But the Bible doesn’t teach fixity of species; it talks about kinds. You can’t extrapolate from change within species to say that an ape-like creature can turn into man.”
Current AiG–UK head Paul Taylor also chimes in, arguing that creationists are “less marginal than we were 20 years ago” and now have greater respect. “They want to clamp down on what children can be taught, which is what they accuse us of,” he adds.
Turning back to the U.S., Moss slips when he claims that “creationists and intelligent design organizations (often a front for Christian creationists) are fighting perpetual legal battles to get creationist teaching into the classrooms of state schools.” Not only are the Intelligent Design Movement and young-Earth creationists very different, but we, for one significant organization at least, have not been involved in fighting legal battles at all. (See Is the Intelligent Design Movement Christian?)
As it proceeds, Moss’s article touches on several other topics: the firing of Michael Reiss, hate mail received by David Attenborough, whether Darwinism inspired the Nazis, how activist atheists actually push people away from evolution, the importance of Genesis 3 in explaining death and suffering, and Jesus’s statements about creation. But Moss manages to sneak in several anti-creationists barbs in the second half of the article, even closing with, “there is no serious disagreement in the scientific community about the fundamentals of Darwin’s theory.”
While it’s an interesting tour for readers—and hopefully informs them of several creationist ideas—the implied subtext ends up the same: creationists are more numerous, more organized, and more active, but they’re just as wacky as ever. Are we?
For more information:
Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know about it! (Note: if the story originates from the Associated Press, Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, or another major national media outlet, we will most likely have already heard about it.) And thanks to all of our readers who have submitted great news tips to us.