Apologetic Musings from the Mud Hut

Over at the Please Convince Me blog, I had a friendly comment exchange the last few weeks with a old earth creationist under this post.  I have plans to bring our comment exchange to the front page of my place.

At any rate, recently a rabid anti-creationist chimed in with the following comment,

Anyone who seriously believes in the young earth hypothesis and rejects science should turn off their computer and go live in a mud hut. The world has no place for such people who sponge off the hard work of others.

Ah yes. The old “the-people-who-believe-in-young-earth-creationism-are-nothing-more-than-primitive-mud-hut-dwellers” argument.

I responded,

Thanks for that completely ignorant and bigoted comment. You’re like the Fred Phelps equivalent for atheists.

To which he responded,

There’s nothing ignorant or bigoted about it.
Clearly you’re unwilling to reject all the benefits of science, instead picking and choosing depending upon what fits with your preconceived ideas … now that sounds a lot like the definition of bigoted.
That every credible scientist believes that the earth is significantly older than you’re claiming makes you ignorant of the facts.
So who am I going to believe? Some mentally deranged lunatic that thinks the earth is a few thousand years old because it fits in with his childish views on the bible or qualified scientists, many of whom are Christians, that know what they’re talking about.

Like I said, you don’t deserve to benefit from the hard work of others. Get off the computer and go live in a mud hut.

Let’s breakdown the basics.

My antagonist is absolute in his conviction that I am a dolt.  Something has either failed in my educational process, or maybe there is something mentally wrong with me that I would believe – contrary to overwhelming and crushing evidence – that the history of the earth is under 10,000 years old.

To believe in YEC is equivalent to living life in the centuries before the Bronze Age.  In fact, it is radically inconsistent to the point of intellectual confusion because I benefit greatly from the “scientific” advances of our modern society, yet have a prehistoric faith.  On one hand I believe Genesis records real history, yet on the other I buy medicine from CVS pharmacy, purchase items from Amazon, enjoy cooking on a gas range, and occasionally drive with the family to the beach in our Toyota Sienna.

Of course, the “science” behind medicine, computers, and automobiles really has nothing to do with how old the earth is.  More to the point, neither does one’s understanding of Genesis. What a person believes about the history of origins and life on Earth has no bearing upon those bodies of knowledge.  I can be a Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian who believes the Earth was created just around 6,000 years ago and thoroughly enjoy the blessing of my high-end coffee maker on Saturday mornings while listening to my Ipod.

Rather he insists that I embrace a worldview framework that claims millions of years of Earth history and chance gave inanimate, inorganic matter the ability to become the living and replicating biological diversity we see on the planet today.  In other words, he wants me to believe in spontaneous generation.

Yes, yes, I realize the consensus from all those hard working, credible scientists now call “spontaneous generation” abiogenesis and claim how biological life arose from nothing in earth’s history past is still under scientific investigation.  But let’s face facts. His idea of where life came from is just as unscientific as mine. He bases that on the grand pronouncements of the scientific magesterium and their musing within their academies as to their view of history.  Which in the larger scheme of things, equally derives from a mud hut.


5 thoughts on “Apologetic Musings from the Mud Hut

  1. I appreciate much of what you say here. Although, the case could be made for some technology depending on scientific theories incompatible with YEC, it scarcely makes you unworthy of them. I suppose, in jest, one might ask if you’d be happy with the antibiotics to 10 years ago–given that you don’t think the microbes will have evolved–when you get ill today. One might equally ask if you’re happy to use a GPS system, when it relies on a relativistic calculation, a theory incompatible with YEC.
    But those would be in jest.
    The point I really took issue with was that of abiogenesis being “unscientific”. I don’t understand what is “unscientific” about the work of Dr Jack Szostak, or Urey and Miller into abiogenesis. Dr Lenski and his team’s work on evolution is perfectly scientific, as is the DNA sequencing and mapping that draws out the phylogenetic tree.
    Science, as a method, is not a “magisterium” where people proclaim things and everyone else just accepts it. It is a rigorous method where the real prize is in disproving what a person has said. Everyone in science is trying to prove another scientist wrong. This is what falsification is. The scientific theories we hold today are one that many experiments give us good reason to believe, and other experiments have given us no reason to reject. And we can look at the claims and the evidence whenever we want. A lot of it is in museums.
    Compare that open and–when you think about it–humble method to the work of the creation ‘scientist’ Robert Gentry.

  2. Although, the case could be made for some technology depending on scientific theories incompatible with YEC, it scarcely makes you unworthy of them.

    They could TRY to make that case, but it would just make them look silly.
    Consider the examples you point out:

    1) Microbes don’t evolve in the fashion that Darwinists insist they must evolve. They’ll adapt to antibiotics, but that is just adaptation. Creationists agree with that. Hence, belief in biological evolution is not necessary to practice medicine. See for example this article that debunks that myth, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v5/n1/evolution-myth-biology
    2) Geocentricism has no bearing on the history of the earth and YEC. The point at hand is how old the earth is, not where the earth exists in the solar system. Additionally, the Bible is not geocentristic. That is a myth that was started sometime around the enlightenment. The issue had to do with Greek philosophical presuppositions driving the way the Catholic church read the Bible, not what the Bible actually teaches.
    3) The Urey-Miller experiment was largely unsuccessful. First, it showed that under controlled circumstance, 11 or so of the known components of amino acids can form. That is proof of designers designing, not abiogenesis. Moreover, as Dr. Tom Cantor, who studied under Miller and Crick of the DNA fame, natural occurring amino acids are arranged in a sequence that displays designed information. I wrote up his interaction with Miller on this subject here:

    Science, as a method, is not a “magisterium” where people proclaim things and everyone else just accepts it.

    I know that you sincerely want to believe this, but it just isn’t true. The current battle of Darwinians against what they consider to be scientific apostates (ID proponents) is proof enough that the issue is not “following the evidence” where ever it leads. Take for example how Jerry Coyne is disturbed that Thomas Nagel has come out as a Darwinian doubter. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/high-level_defe063751.html I could give you many, many examples of such censorship on the part of universities and academics against their peers who dare challenge the evolutionary dogma.

  3. Fred,
    Good exchanges over there at the Please Convince Me blog. Thanks for your willingness to ‘dog’ it out with some of the commenters. I for one, would appreciate your bringing some of those comments over here to your blog, so look forward to that effort in the near future. Thanks for bringing to my awareness, the existence of that blog, hadn’t run across it before, but am always willing to explain the inconsistencies in any old earth evolutionary position for the Christian who claims he/she ‘believes’ the Bible.

  4. Pingback: From the Mud Hut « DR. RELUCTANT

  5. I’d’ve wanted to respond, “Is the degree of careful, detailed and objective investigation you put into the conclusion that I am mentally deranged representative of the processes that produced the evolutionary theory? If not, why not?”

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s