A reader claims that AiG is surpressing other viewpoints that do not agree with us. However, as Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S., explains, there is hardly a lack of other views on our site and in the world.
Your website discourages discussion of your views. For example, I had to search through several links to find this feedback page. The name of your organization is revealing. You appear to take the view that you probably already have all the answers, which is hardly the case.
It seems that AIG has little interest in the exchange of views, especially views that don’t support AIG’s. Do you feel there is no need to discuss them? Do you think you know or speak for God? If so, how arrogant!
I have to state that your contention that the interpretation of the evidence for evolution depends on one’s world view is laughable. In fact, what I see with each and every claim is that AIG simply asserts that the evidence supports their case when by any rational measure it clearly does not. Worldview does not cancel gravity. For AIG, it seems, dogma trumps all. I suggest that you simply reject science and relax. That, at least, would be a morally defensible, if misguided, position to take.
Please tell Ken Ham that it was because of his teaching on Genesis that my young son Rory has returned to the Lord. God gets the glory . . . love you all
Let us know what you think.
Thank you for contacting us. Please see my comments below and note the sincerity with which they are said.
Your website discourages discussion of your views. For example, I had to search through several links to find this feedback page.
Discussion of our views takes place all around the Internet—on forums, blogs, Twitter, and other social networks. In fact, we often encourage our visitors to share the articles they read (with the ShareThis button at the top of each page). What we don’t have the resources for, however, is to take on forums and discussions on our own site. We address as many questions and thoughts as we can, and then we encourage our supporters to carry those discussions to other websites, as there are many more of them than there are of us. This is not an attempt to dissuade discussion; it is understanding our role and limitations.
The name of your organization is revealing. You appear to take the view that you probably already have all the answers, which is hardly the case.
This is misrepresentation fallacy. The name of our ministry, Answers in Genesis, is revealing though. It is an effort to direct people to the foundation for what Christians should believe: the Bible. But to apply this name to a view that AiG either has or thinks it has “all the answers” is grossly misleading. But God, indeed, does have all the answers, and we merely intend to ultimately point everyone to His Word (the Bible) as the only source of Truth and answers.
It seems that AIG has little interest in the exchange of views, especially views that don’t support AIG’s. Do you feel there is no need to discuss them?
Since you apparently feel so strongly about exchange in views, we wonder if you have contacted schools and universities about an exchange in views—other than that of evolution, as it is very unlikely that they would agree to entertain any other view than evolution. (Note that AiG does not advocate the teaching of creation in schools—especially by those not qualified, but we do wonder why the evolutionary religion of humanism gets free reign in the classroom, whereas other religions have been kicked out.) And we do, in fact, discuss views contrary to our own in a number of places. For example, we usually address a challenge to our views each Friday in Feedback responses, and we specifically quote a number of anti-creation views in our News to Note column each week (and in other articles).
Also, we openly offer to debate various matters of science and theology. AiG is happy to engage in equal time formal debates—preferably among two candidates who are qualified such as PhD vs. PhD. In fact, AiG issues a call for such a debate:
Debate topic: “Creation or Evolution: which view is the most consistent with science?”
The debate will be on equal time for both positions and equal time for cross examination. A moderator, acting as neutral as possible, will be involved to keep the debate on time and in format. And we want to have non-exclusive rights to distribute the recording (of course, the opposing person/organization is welcome to copy and distribute as well). If there are any takers, please contact us.
Do you think you know or speak for God? If so, how arrogant!
Yes and no. As Christians, of course, we know God (to the best of each of our abilities to get into God’s Word), and have repented of our sins and received Christ as Lord and Savior. As Christians, we have been instructed to be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15). We can know God because He knows us and indwells us and leads us in His Truth. We would encourage you to get to know Him as well—at least consider the claims of Christ with an open mind. We encourage you to also consider the straightforward reading of Scripture, putting aside any interpretation that you’ve heard or think.
Do we speak for God? No. God speaks for Himself in His Word—the Bible. If we ever present a view that is contradictory to Scripture, and then place it above the scriptural view, then that would be not only arrogant, but blasphemy.
I have to state that your contention that the interpretation of the evidence for evolution depends on one’s world view is laughable.
How so? It is sad that many really think that evolutionists do not interpret evidence in light of their evolutionary worldview. When evolutionists dig up a dinosaur bone, they don’t announce it was created on the 6th day of creation!
In fact, what I see with each and every claim is that AIG simply asserts that the evidence supports their case when by any rational measure it clearly does not.
Such as? Besides, I’ve heard creationists assert the same basic thing about evolutionists: “In fact, what I see with each and every claim is that evolutionists simply assert that the evidence supports their case when by any rational measure it clearly does not.” Why would we point this out? Because evidence does not support or refute. It is inanimate. It is not a rationally thinking being. Hence, this reveals the fallacy of reification—where people try to give humanlike qualities to something that doesn’t have it. So we are back to interpretations of evidence, based on one’s worldview. Our News to Note articles regularly show how a recent scientific discovery is bald of evolution until it is applied by the scientists—and then shows how one can reasonably do the same thing with a creationist viewpoint.
Worldview does not cancel gravity.
Of course not, but only the Christian worldview can account for gravity’s existence. In an evolutionary worldview, why would the laws of science be uniform? So, to do science, the Bible must be true. Additionally, you’re misunderstanding what a worldview is and does. Gravity is a physical constant that we can repeatedly test in the present. The present effects of gravity are not up for debate. Instead, a worldview informs our beliefs about the past, such as why there is the uniformity of gravity that we do observe. An evolutionist could give no reason why there is uniformity, but a Christian would say that the universe behaves in a uniform fashion because it reflects God’s nature and this uniformity makes science possible. Worldview differences are not about observations of the present; they are about the unobservable past and origins.
For AIG, it seems, dogma trumps all.
False. God and His Word trumps all, as God is the ultimate authority. To challenge this is to raise oneself up to be greater than God. This is essentially the religion of humanism. But for the non-Christian, dogma trumps logic, science, and so on.
I suggest that you simply reject science and relax.
Considering science comes out of a Christian worldview, there is no need to reject science. Since we’re being logical, rational, and calm—resting in the peace of God and His Word (Philippians 4:7)—why would we need a suggestion to relax?
That, at least, would be a morally defensible, if misguided, position to take.
To assume that morality exists, is to assume the Bible is true, as morality originates from God. Considering morality comes from a Christian worldview, this statement is also false and undermines the position taken in this email.
May we suggest that you consider the truth of God and His Word and begin with God being the authority—not me or anyone at Answers in Genesis. The issue is between you and God. Consider the God of the Bible, and consider His free gift of salvation and restoration to man.
With kindness in Christ,
Bodie Hodge and editors