Faith Infiltration: Creation Museum, pt7

You should subscribe to the Ziztur.com RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

We’re still plowing through our series of blog posts based on photographs of displays taken at the creation museum! If you’d like to see the rest of the series, click the “intelligent design” label at the bottom of the page.

Here we have a poster outlining the basic differences between “human reason” and “God’s word” with regard to “rocks”. This poster is pretty vague but basically attempts to explain that humans have used their reasoning capabilities to determine how the “rocks” came to have the form they have, while there is a different story if one starts with the Bible. Looking a little closer at this poster…

One can see under the heading “human reason” we see the subtitle “present processes” where under the title, “God’s word” is the subtitle “past processes”.

I think this poster is perhaps trying to convey that while “human reason” (which you might recall means “arbitrary guesses” according to another poster) can tell us what is going on with the “rocks” now, only the Bible can tell us what has occurred in the past, simply because the Bible is the Bible and it says so.

Once again, AiG is making a mockery of science by claiming that information about things we cannot directly observe (such as the past) cannot be known unless it is from some ultimate source that was able to observe these events. Basically, what this means is that if we are walking in the woods and happen across a downed and rotting tree, and we observe that the tree has a hollow center, is infested with termites, and is especially rotted at the stump of the tree and the base of its remaining trunk, it is an “arbitrary guess” to infer that the tree fell due to its base being weakened by termites sufficient that it fell. God says the tree was cut down by a lumberjack, and so it was.

Similarly, because we did not directly observe the whole history of the Bible, we cannot infer that it is correct in claiming any of the things it claims, including the claims that it is “god’s word”. Thus, the whole idea that we are simply guessing at how things came about when we lack direct observational evidence and can only rely on the word of the Bible for truth is self-refuting. If evidence does not matter and all that matters is what god says, then why bother with evidence at all?

This is essentially what AiG is doing – they are claiming that what we observe in the present has nothing to do with what happened in the past, which is why they can claim that evolution is happening now (remember the creation orchard?) but has not happened in the past. It is the only way they can still cling to all that they hold dear without calling the sky red. We can’t prove it wasn’t red in the past, and god says it was red in the past, and so therefore the sky used to be red. It’s actually still red, but only true believers can see the redness, and everyone else is just blind to it. You have to start from the belief that the sky is red before you can see the red.