The Lies of AiG

Faith & Science Conversation
141

I am not wishing to be mean to our new friend, but to those of you who have been following this topic, this is a very good example of the kind of situation I have been talking about. That is, someone who believes they have ‘information’ that is ‘repressed or covered up by science’ that shows evolution to be false. Thus they believe there is a conspiracy.

This is the standard cult formula used by all cults including YEC groups like AiG, Hovind and others. It goes something like this:

  1. Teach people that they and only they are the true believers.
  2. Teach that the out-group’s ideas are immoral, dangerous and destructive to all that is good.
  3. ‘Share’ with the followers information that exposes the out-group’s ideas as false preaching, and the out-group members as liars who are conspiring to destroy the cult and deny its truth.
  4. Discourage the cult member from independent thinking and research by denouncing the out-group in this way (in other words you can’t trust the out-group so don’t listen to them), plus making them feel unworthy as members of the cult if they consider investigating things for themselves.
  5. If a cult member does consider independently checking information even for a moment, they will experience fear and guilt. Fear because they risk being expelled from their in-group, and guilt for feeling doubt. This tends to turn followers into zealots who now want to make amends by proving their worthiness through proselytizing. This recruits new members and the circle is complete.

When we encounter such people, debating the science or the theology only serves to confirm their beliefs. This is because they are convinced that we are the ones who are either part of the conspiracy or have been duped by the conspirators, so everything we say ‘must be lies’. They have been armed with defenses against our responses, and taught that we are blind, corrupt or stupid. Remember, they are here to prove you wrong, to defend their beliefs and recruit new followers. But also remember that they are here to assuage their guilt and counter their fears, so the more you argue with them, the more you risk them digging in further (as has been said by others).

Hence, my approach is to refuse to engage with them until they have gone against their fear and guilt and done the necessary homework. Sometimes they become so motivated to prove you wrong, they will sidestep the fear and guilt by planning to go and properly learn the real science with the goal of showing it to be false. Either way, if they are intellectually honest, I know that once exposed to real science, they will end up proving themselves wrong.

Very often we hear of YECs going and learning the science and then becoming unbelievers altogether. Obviously there is a lot at stake here theologically and religiously, and this has been covered in other forum topics. However, I focus on the thing that all ex-YECs say, which is “Now I know the actual science and not what I was told within the YEC cult, I know I have been lied to, and I am ashamed for believing the things they told me for so long”. We have all heard these remarks by ex-YECs, and in every case I have encountered, it was from independent research of the actual science that led them out of their cult. It is this that I am seeking to encourage.

1 Like
142

Before evolution can be addressed, though, the antiquity of the universe and the earth must be accepted. It may be a false hope, but I may have had some success when I got less negative feedback than I expected after I posted these two concise and accessible evidences to a YECish readership elsewhere this week…

143

This is key. When a person is led to believe that they cannot trust any information except that which comes directly from their favorite YEC pundit, they are cut off from doing any real investigation, and in many cases start to see investigation itself as problematic.

Kent Hovind used to have (and probably still does) a monetary “offer” for anyone who can provide him with proof of evolution, which is of course a farce because he will never accept anything that doesn’t match his own personal idea of “proof,” which is not a scientific one.

2 Likes
144

Of course, nothing is ever totally proven scientifically, as new evidence can arise that causes modification. But it is easy peasy to disprove stuff like a young earth.

1 Like
145

Yeah, and I think speakers like Hovind use that to their advantage, making it sound like “not proven” is some kind of flaw of evolution specifically, when holding that kind of standard across the board would mean throwing almost all science out the window – but most listeners (like me at the time) would not know that.

2 Likes
146

I literally had someone trying to tell me that they know unicorns and dragons existed because the Bible talks about it and said that humans use to be 14+ feet tall before the flood and that scientists hides the fact that dinosaurs and humans are found buried together all the time.

They are sincere also. They are not drug addicts or anything. They just believe that scientists are liars and that the Bible is very literal.

The woman, I forget her name, that found the soft dinosaur tissue. They was taking about how they read on some site that she does not really believe in evolution but that her boss threatened her and scared her into saying she does or something. They was their response to be linking them with the two blogs focused on her.

I was trying to explain to them also that a flood is not realistic. A global flood. That miles high worth of water covering the entire globe coming out in just a few months would have resulted in super geysers with sore hot water and maybe even steam.

I always feel like telling them to visit the yellow stone National park. You want to see how subterranean water erupts from the ground that’s how lol. There was not 5 miles worth of cool water spewing out.

147

Mary Schweitzer. And if you ever want to read more to help set the record straight on that …
Here is a Biologos article where Mary herself was interviewed about it.

4 Likes
148

I brainwashed myself in to a cult from the age of 15 in '69. Didn’t meet a representative for four years. They were THAT clever. You had to insist on joining. Jump through hoops. And the obviously mentally ill were excluded. The merely eccentric (what, me?!) were acceptable. No power on Earth could prise us out. The cult deconstructed itself starting in '95. Unless the leadership are changed one way or another, there is no chance for the little people.

What could have saved me from all that? Education. Not just mine. Society’s. The state needs to be MORE involved in education. I went to a state school as good as any public (private) school in the county and thrived there, and still brainwashed myself in to a cult. I was never challenged effectively. Nobody knew how. Nobody.

Only terrorism has forced us to begin to challenge alienated radicalization in W. Europe.

And that doesn’t look that strongly benevolent.

1 Like
150

Point 2. I would have to see what they say that someone thinks is wrong and that they should know is wrong. Remember that there can be competing theories for a single event. How can you prove which is correct, counting noses? This is a logical fallacy, appeal to authority, and is also a problem with your dismissal of Kent Hovind.

Like another, poisoning the well, it would be nice to throw out competing sources, but issues and facts must be dealt with individually. I figure science gets it correct sometimes, despite the fact that they are wrong more often than not.

151

 
Alternate explanation please:

 
For this, too:

 
And please ask for help from other young earth folks, if you need it.

152

Let me ask a quick question or two. Do you believe in gradualism? How about the worldwide flood?

Radioactive atoms. What law says that because any particular nuclide can exist, that it must exist? And why would every nuclide, including the ones present begin at 100% radioactivity?

Who knows the math for this? How radioactive would the earth have been 100 million years ago, or 2 billion years ago, with the short term nuclides added to the longer term ones?

153

This is what the LORD says: If I have not established my covenant with the day and the night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth… Jeremiah 33:25

You want to discredit the clocks that God engineered into the cosmos for us to discover and learn how to use to discover how vast the universe is in both size and in antiquity… and that it had a beginning, or at least a beginning event that unbelievers cannot deny.

154

A beautiful book*, nine of the eleven contributing authors of whom are evangelical Christians.

  The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth

image
image1500×1941 608 KB

 

*It is not available in electronic format, nor would you want it to be. I requested that my local public library purchase it, and they did. It’s also not like I live in a liberal metropolitan area, either – it’s a conservative midwestern town with a population of about thirty-five thousand.

2 Likes
155

This refutes the YEC argument about the Kaibab uplift and the Grand Canyon in 11 seconds:

156

That’s the one, and other that I sent them.

157

Peter, at 56, I would be greatly surprised if you knew more about any side of this issue (science in general or the bible) than I, so don’t assume otherwise. I may add that some specifics and some new findings may be exceptions. Most people who think that are going to be surprised because the truth will out.

Romans 1:18-23 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

158

And yet, yelling Bullfrog doesn’t prove he’s incorrect. If we’re the top of the evolutionary tree, why do we have far fewer chromosomes than ferns, who should be near the bottom?

159

Fair enough. Let me rephrase. It is clear when Jesus speaks in parables. I don’t see the same type of change in the Old Testament, particularly the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), which seems to be strictly history. Do you think that these books are fiction, parable or history, and where do you draw the lines, since there don’t seem to be any in the word?

160

Hey, I am 56 too! Does that mean you know as much as me? If I was 57, would that mean that I am right and you are wrong?

Patrick, I am not interested in how old you are or how much ‘information’ you have acquired in your 56 years on this earth. I am only interested in whether what you say is true. If you have learned a lot of false things, which is clear, then I am saddened to hear that you have spent so much of your time believing incorrect things.

I am not assuming how little or how much you know. I am basing my comments on my observations of what you have said. What you have said so far on the scientific front is misinformed, unfounded and simply incorrect.

Here is an example…

This shows again that you @Patrick_S have no idea at all about the science around evolution. This is one of the many many false ideas of evolution that are propagated by Hovind, AiG and others. Firstly, there is no ‘top of the evolutionary tree’, and secondly, the number of chromosomes has no bearing whatsoever on being ‘more evolved’ or ‘higher up the tree’. These are just nonsense ideas and science does not make these kinds of arguments at all. If you knew the science, you would know this. Thus all you have done is erected a straw man.

Others in here are presenting information to you that shows that what you have been told by Hovind et al is incorrect, but I will bet you have either not looked at it, or have looked at it but been unaffected by it, because you do not have an open mind. You have already decided to believe evolution to be wrong because it just has to be in order for your version of theology to be correct. You have painted yourself into a corner and are fighting hard against reality.

I am new to BioLogos, but I am impressed so far with the commitment of these people to having an open mind, trying to honestly and thoroughly look at the real science from actual scientists like Francis Collins, and being prepared to change their mind in light of the evidence. They have managed to square their theology with the findings of science and where they still have issues, they engage in productive, open and honest dialog which is the whole point of this site - or so it seems to me. Anyway, my point is that you are locked in to your position and have completely blocked off reality, and are trying your hardest to present ‘information’, which we all know is incorrect, to attack evolution . You are wasting your time because you are attempting to argue against science when a) you are wrong, b) you don’t know the science, and c) you do not have an open mind.

BioLogos members for the most part are very sincere and value intellectual honesty, and are able to see through huxters like Hovind and Ham and others. By contrast, inside your echo chamber, Hovind and Ham might seem legitimate to you, yet on the outside we know them to be dishonest, telling lies about science and scientists to make a living.

As I said before, and I will say it again. Go and learn the real science and I will be happy to discuss it with you in whatever level of depth you want to go to. I have the science background, so I am ready when you are. But please, in the meantime, stop with the Hovind, AiG nonsense.

3 Likes
161

oh, and I forgot to include this link
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03170-7#:~:text=“Mammals%20were%20actually%20very%20diverse,to%20be%20our%20ancestors11.

Which shows that the earliest mammals lived in the Jurassic. Perhaps they were not your modern rabbit but as it happens, not too far off either.