Just accept what ‘scientists’ say?
Once more, an anti-creationist cannot demonstrate a single error but instead casts aspersions on the qualifications of our authors, which, as will be seen, are unfounded. It’s also amazing that a number of anti-creationists claim to know what God would or wouldn’t do, but ignore what He said He actually did!
From Mike Nelson, USA, who gave permission for his full name to be used. His letter is printed first, then printed again with point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, interspersed as per normal email fashion.
After reading through some of the information in your Web site, I am very concerned that [your ministry] is attempting to address scientific matters related to geology and paleontology without having a post-doctorate level professor of geology or paleontology on staff. There does not appear to be anyone who is Ph.D. professional research scientist who is reviewing your publications for scientific accuracy. Good science must be substantiated by sound repeatable observations that can be understood within the framework of the science as a whole. The Bachelors Degree in science held Mr. Ham is simply not sufficient to credibly debate the issues from a scientific standpoint. You cannot discount the many years of study by good scientists as being inconsequential. God and Scripture do not require that believers ignore sound science. Neither does God and Scripture say that if “we believe on a six-day creation, we will be saved”.
After reading through some of the information in your Web site, I am very concerned that [your ministry] is attempting to address scientific matters related to geology and paleontology without having a post-doctorate level professor of geology or paleontology on staff.
After reading through your letter, I am very concerned at yet another argument from authority without the slightest demonstration of actual error. Your statement is wrong anyway—we have had a number of post-graduate level geologists and paleontologists writing or reviewing articles for us, e.g. Dr Andrew Snelling (who worked for us for years and now works for our friends the Institute for Creation Research), Dr Steven Austin, Dr Tas Walker, John Woodmorappe. It’s also interesting many evolutionists who complain about creationists supposedly speaking outside their fields have no qualms about speaking outside their own fields! For example, see More nonsense from Professor Plimer and The ‘Indoctrinator’.
There does not appear to be anyone who is Ph.D. professional research scientist who is reviewing your publications for scientific accuracy.
You’re wrong there, as a cursory glance of our Creation magazine and Journal of Creation would have shown. There are several Ph.D. scientists with considerable research experience between them. As well as Dr Walker, the CMI staff include Dr Don Batten, Dr Pierre Jerlström , Dr David Catchpoole and myself. As well, we have astronomy professor Dr Danny Faulkner writing/advising on astronomy, and physicist Dr Russell Humphreys doing the same with physics. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list either.
Good science must be substantiated by sound repeatable observations that can be understood within the framework of the science as a whole.
Hey, maybe I was wrong about you—looks like you have read our website after all—unlike most of our critics—because this is a point we often make. ;) That’s the whole point—non-living chemicals evolving into living cells (see Q&A: Origin of Life), single-celled to multi-celled organisms, invertebrates to vertebrates, dinosaurs to birds and ape-like creatures into humans has not been substantiated by any observations, let alone repeatable ones. Similarly, no-one has observed rock layers forming over millions of years (under classical uniformitarianism) or witnessed millions of years between episodes of catastrophic deposition (under neo-catastrophism)—putting the millions of years precisely where there is no evidence!
The Bachelors Degree in science held Mr. Ham is simply not sufficient to credibly debate the issues from a scientific standpoint.
This is incongruous with the previous statement that correctly stated that science was about ‘sound repeatable observations’—now science seems to be about blindly accepting the pronouncements of a self-appointed scientific élite until you’re a member of the club. But I guess this is easier than actually demonstrating where Mr. Ham is wrong!
You cannot discount the many years of study by good scientists as being inconsequential.
Another great point! Indeed, we shouldn’t discount the strong creationist beliefs of most of the founders of modern science as inconsequential—see our scientists page.
God and Scripture do not require that believers ignore sound science.
Of course not—that’s why we’re amazed that professing believers ignore the sound science that is consistent with design, a creation about 6000 years ago, and a global Flood. What’s even more amazing is someone saying such things while himself ignoring God’s clear statements in Scripture of these facts!
Neither does God and Scripture say that if “we believe on a six-day creation, we will be saved.”
Wow, again you’ve been reading our website! We’ve said the same thing in articles such as
- Is it Possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist? A leading creationist answers an often-asked question
- The big picture: Being wrong about the six days of creation does not automatically mean someone is not a Christian. But if you think that makes it unimportant, stand back and look at the big picture …
- Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian?
Of course, again we have to note that it’s incongruous to argue about what God and Scripture don’t say but ignore what they do say! And an additional point is the judgment of believers’ works in 1 Corinthians 3:10–15—here, salvation is not at risk, but loss of reward for saved people. Some will receive a reward if their works are built on the correct foundation, Jesus Christ, as if with precious stones tested by fire. The works of other believers will be burnt up, and they will suffer loss of reward. Note Jesus Christ affirmed the special creation of Adam and Eve according to Genesis 1 and 2 (Matthew 19:3–6), that they were male and female ‘from the beginning of creation’ rather than 15 billion years after the alleged big bang (Mark 10:6), and that Noah’s Flood and Ark really ‘happened’ (Luke 17:26–27). So how can any work, e.g. theistic evolution or progressive creation, be said to be built on this foundation if it undermines His clear teachings?
(Dr.) Jonathan Sarfati