AiG currently in 3rd place in the Ark building race.

First Noah built an Ark, then AiG had grand plans for one, but it looks like a chap in The Netherlands has stolen AiG's Ark thunder and gone ahead and built his own.

Johan Huibers took 20 years to build his fantasy boat which includes a restaurant, a movie theatre and a petting zoo. (I'm not sure if there is a swimming pool on the Aloha Deck, but my travel agent assures me there is a good chance of a night club on the Lido Deck).

For AiG this must be a bitter blow as their own 'Ark Encounter' faces ever increasing delays due to a lack of financial donations. Their 'Creation Museum' is also experiencing low attendance figures.

'Ark Encounter' Vice President Michael Zovath says there is currently no date in mind to begin construction on the AiG Ark. Looks like Johan in Holland has a lot to smile about, him and his stuffed tiger.

http://news.yahoo.com/dutchman-launches-life-sized-replica-noahs-ark-145330205.html

(Since Noah's Ark is not copyrighted I guess AiG can't launch legal action against him. I have no doubt they'd love to try).

AiG gets an F in ancient British history

When it comes to figuring out ancient British history, AiG really needs to go back to school and learn a thing or two. Here’s a rundown of how they try to rundown secular historical research.

Britain, for whatever reason, is a particularly rich place for ancient finds and research. Though all European countries boast incredible archaeological discoveries and so forth, Britain often seems to have a little more to enthrall and overawe us in terms of what has been preserved from the ancient past. For example, the largest stone circles are found in Britain, as well as other Neolithic and Bronze Age structures such as barrows (burial mounds), cursus’ (parallel banks and ditches sometimes running for several kilometres, one of which is over ten kilometres long), causewayed enclosures (multi-purpose sacred spaces), Silbury Hill - Europe’s largest man-made hill and many other weird and wonderful constructions. As the years have gone by researches have come to realise that Britain seems to show a continuous cultural link right back to the Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age), and perhaps even further back. Mesolithic burial customs seem to have influenced Neolithic burial customs which were then in some ways reflected in later Bronze Age customs and so on. Britain truly is a fascinating place and is a great land to dig for the past for it so often yields incredible relics.

In the June – August 1998 edition of AiG’s ‘Creation ex Nihilo’ in the ‘Focus’ section there was an article called ‘Giant ‘Stone Age’ temple stuns theorists’, with a footnote that it came from ‘The Independent’. What followed was a diagram of a circular wooden structure, like several known throughout Britain, and the text underneath began with,

‘As old as Stonehenge, the remains of a huge structure in England have been revealed by X-ray, shattering the usual ideas of ‘primitive man’. (page 8).

Oh geez. First of all, no-one who investigates the British Neolithic, Bronze Age etc would ever label the peoples of those eras as being ‘primitive.’ To do so would not only be thoroughly erroneous, but would also be an insult to our ancestors. Secondly, the structure they have a drawing of is none other than the circular structure found at a place called Durrington Walls, near Stonehenge, dated to about 2,800 BC, and discovered in the 1960’s. There are two other similar round buildings from the late Neolithic era which are ‘Woodhenge’ in the Stonehenge district, and ‘The Sanctuary’ which is part of the Avebury stone circle complex further to the north. Just why AiG is touting this as an amazing creationist proving discovery is a mystery, for it is nothing of the sort. The almost identical ‘Woodhenge’ was discovered in 1925! This is not news, archaeologists have known of these buildings for a long time now. Also, who exactly are these ‘theorists’ who are ‘stunned’ that the article mentions? 

I find it curious that the article begins with ‘As old as Stonehenge’, because Stonehenge was begun about 2,900 BC as a circular ditch and bank. But the year 2,900 BC is, according to the AiG version of history, centuries before Noah’s Flood, a flood that is supposed to have wiped clean the Earth, including, no doubt, Stonehenge. So does AiG accept the date for the beginning of Stonehenge? What seems likely is that someone from AiG saw the article in ‘The Independent’ and decided that it would look good in their magazine. Clearly, whoever okayed the inclusion of this article in ‘Creation ex Nihilo’ has no knowledge whatsoever of  British Neolithic archaeology, nor an ability to determine what is genuine news and what is simply empty padding rearranged to look impressive.

The UK Sunday Telegraph printed a story back in May 1996 about a fellow called Mark Whitby who believes he knows how Stonehenge was constructed and how he feels other ideas about how the stones were moved are wrong. (He believes each stone could have been put up by about 120 people in five days) Fair enough, I suppose there are any numbers of ways that the large sarsens could have been erected and scientific inquiry of this nature is always welcomed. But AiG’s tag to this story, printed in their ‘Creation’ magazine is so hopelessly silly one wonders who thought it worthy of printing. It went,

‘The demonstration shows that ideas suggesting such things as help from ‘spacemen’ are not required. All one needs to assume is that the early post-Flood inhabitants of Britain, though lacking access to the technological inventions of today, were no less clever than people nowadays. Not surprisingly, the archaeological establishment has attacked Whitby’s idea, suggesting that people then were probably too weak from an inadequate diet, or (here is the evolutionary bias) may not have even had greased planks.’ (Volume 18, Issue 4. 1996)

For a start, who is actually claiming that ‘spacemen’ built Stonehenge? Apart from the odd alternate-archaeology books which crop up occasionally, a Stonehenge built by aliens is not a running contender. For AiG to hint that archaeologists believe that the inhabitants of the Stonehenge environs were too weak to build such things because of an inadequate diet is shear nonsense. Obviously, Neolithic and Bronze Age people did build Stonehenge! Go and look at it for yourself, its right there near the A303 from Amesbury. I’ve seen it myself, it exists. Silbury Hill in Wiltshire predates the stones at Stonehenge by centuries yet was an even more massive undertaking. Clearly our ancestors were more than strong enough to undertake such gigantic structures. Can AiG name one book on British archaeology that states such a claim? And finally, there is the predictable bit about ‘evolutionary bias’ with regards to knowledge of greased planks. Whether Stone Age Britons had them or not I have no idea, but I think that since my ancestors could build such enormous structures then quite probably they did have greased planks. Maybe the editors of ‘Creation’ could have done a bit of research into British prehistory before including articles that serve no purpose.

Stonehenge, Avebury, Silbury Hill and Woodhenge are the results of native British cultures and not Biblical personages. They show a progression of building styles, architecture and ritual that go back to at least the Mesolithic. If we could go back in time, say to the year 2348 BC to southern Britain (one of the dates assigned to Noah’s Flood), we would not find a watery world with a lone ark bobbing about, instead we would see a landscape of forests, farms, ritual centres like the stone circles, and a productive, creative and intelligent people living and working in harmony with the land. (All that fresh air, working on the land and organic food, what a paradise!)

In the March-May 2002 issue of ‘Creation’ magazine on page 8, we have a story reported from ‘The Times’ called ‘Stone Age Engineers’. The article briefly outlined a Stone Age farmhouse that was uncovered in Perthshire, Scotland, and how it was discovered that the house had a living area, kitchen and bedroom. While a find such as this is always exciting, it is certainly not unique. Skara Brae is the name given to a similar Neolithic settlement found in the Orkney Islands off the north coast of Scotland, and occupied from about 3,100 BC to 2,500 BC. This is today considered to be the best preserved prehistoric settlement in northern Europe. Beds, dressers and hearths were all found inside including an assortment of tools and other fine domestic debris. It was discovered in 1850 and excavated in 1920. But AiG thinks this is proof of the settlement of the direct descendants of Noah, though the tools and domestic debris bear no resemblance to items from the Middle East. Once again, AiG doesn’t even try to offer any sort of insight into this discovery, it just slaps on the tired old bit about,

‘Not surprising, since these were post-Flood descendants of Noah,’

and then leaves it at that. What this find actually represents is another wonderful piece of real ancient British history and has nothing at all to do with Noah, his sons or any other Biblical figures. AiG’s contribution to our understanding of ancient British history is nil. Could AiG perhaps explain in what order the burial mounds, stone circles and other megalithic works were constructed? When was Silbury Hill built, before or after the nearby outer Avebury stone circle? What was the function of causewayed enclosures? Do the Aubrey Holes at Stonehenge predate or postdate the construction of the blue stones? Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic are all just lumped together by AiG under the banner of ‘Stone Age’ without any attempt to realise that these ages are distinct yet connected in so many ways with each other and which show a progression of technology and artistic sophistication.

Further proof of AiG’s poor understanding of ancient European history was amply demonstrated in a little piece they found in ‘The Sunday Times’ (The Sunday Times, p.17, 16 June 1996) and which they titled ‘Early European writing overturns theories.’ Apparently some markings on fragments of pottery are being viewed by some historians as an early form of writing from about 1,500BC. If correct this would certainly be a spectacular and wonderful insight into our past, but AiG’s tag to the story goes,

‘The early settlers of Western Europe were the descendants, not of apemen, but of those affected by the Babel dispersion, a couple of centuries after the Flood.’

 Just how AiG can justify working the word ‘apemen’ into an article about the European Bronze Age is baffling and insulting to say the least. From these examples it is clear that AiG doesn’t even have a grade school understanding of ancient British and European history. Instead, they ply an outdated medieval fantasy featuring all sorts of Biblical people trundling across the European continent without a hint of understanding about how vastly more complex and intricate ancient European history really is.

Woodhenge

Stonehenge

Silbury Hill

Avebury

The Rant, or A Rant - Either way it was going to happen.

How did we end up with ‘Answers in Genesis’? I mean, in terms of the Western World we’ve had the Reformation, we’ve had the Renaissance, we’ve had the Enlightenment, we’ve had the Industrial Revolution – there’s been progress affecting every layer of human existence, and then in the late 20^th century along comes this literal Bible-believing group that wants to send us back to some distant point in the past, and some sections of the community enthusiastically respond to it. What happened to us? How did our culture allow such a backward group of men develop? Young-Earth Creationism isn’t some fly-by-night rabble; it’s a slick, professional phenomenon that every day seems to attract more and more adherents.

These people really believe this stuff. They actually sign up with this one organisation and allow this one organisation to dictate to them their version of Bible-inspired world history. And the thing is, ‘Answers in Genesis’ make it all up. That’s an important point, they make it up. The Ice Age, dinosaurs, continental drift, Neanderthals… none of these things are in the Bible, but AiG pretend that they are, based on their own interpretations of what’s written in the Bible.

 It boggles the mind that seemingly intelligent men and women can be so susceptible to AiG’s brand of creationism. AiG is nonsense – it promotes fiction, it offers false clues to understanding our world, it contributes absolutely nothing to science or education, and it willingly distorts the Bible and holds it up to ridicule. These people should be ashamed of themselves for wasting time, money and resources by promoting such a ludicrous version of history, cleverly disguised in the name of faith and religion.

The powers that be at AiG are all playing a fantasy. They dress up in suits and open a museum and hold interviews and publish books and spout from the pulpit yet it’s all make-believe. They are living a delusion, a waking dream where they can act-out their fantasies, immune from the real world. And the gullible public sends in their financial donations to these actors to perpetuate their daydream.

AiG is akin to Peter Pan’s Neverland, a place where the children never grew up, where they keep ‘playing’ despite the outside world moving on. And just like children, they throw a tantrum whenever anyone disrupts or questions their make-believe world. Trust me, I’ve been on the receiving end of their vitriol and quasi legal threats simply because I dared to question them. They must be a scared bunch indeed, being so defensive by an ordinary (well, maybe slightly extraordinary guy) going about the very real world activity of analysis and reflection regarding their beliefs.

The concept of ‘God’ creating humankind in his (or her) image is a beautiful one indeed, but subverting science to prove dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark is reprehensible to say the least. For AiG, Christianity is no longer a faith, it is instead a set of graphs, charts and mathematical equations, all designed to wow us into thinking that young-earth creationism is a real proposition. The ‘faith’ element has been done away with by AiG, to be replaced with shonky, dictatorial fairly-tale science.

One of the key things I’ve noticed about AiG is that they are a reactionary organisation, meaning that they react to new scientific discoveries, rather than actually making them. For example, the ‘Scientific American’ magazine will publish details of a new discovery regarding, say,  human evolution, and all AiG can do is refute it with a couple of Bible quotes and a few dredge-ups from their past articles, and that’s about it. Really, that’s all AiG can muster. They certainly aren’t an out-in-the-field bunch of people; instead they are a sit-at-their-computer group who whine and complain about what actual, hard working experts are doing and discovering out in the real world. And yet they view themselves, arrogantly, as being better than everyone else.

Ultimately, AiG are just another addition to the modern world’s collection of religious extremists who offer nothing but division, selfish dogma and hatred. Hatred for other Christians who don’t follow their beliefs, hatred of evolutionists, hatred of secular science, hatred of free will. This ain’t good, this ain’t good at all. Is this what the Western world has fought for all these centuries, to end up with AiG and its walls of ignorance, censorship and anti-intellectualism?

AiG is nothing more than an egotistical, self-important, self-centred bunch of people who believe they have God on THEIR side and the rest of us are either dumb, delusional or brainwashed simply because we don't agree with them. They are the ultimate waste of space. 

The Ice Age - I bet you didn't know it's in the Bible (This is news to the Bible as well)

As a kid I attended religious class nearly every Tuesday morning at my local public school in Sydney. I certainly didn’t have a choice about it; we all had to do it whether we wanted to or not. We sang songs about Noah and the Flood and it was all very innocent and simple. It all seems so long ago now, especially since religious education is no longer compulsory in government schools these days, but back then Tuesday morning was the time we let God into the classroom. Later at high school in the 1980’s we occasionally had an Australian Army Chaplain come and talk to us, as my school was located near a large army base. In all the classes I ever had to sit through back then not one of my Scripture teachers ever said that the Ice Age was a Biblical event.

When we read about the Ice Age or see a documentary about it on television it is usually in regards to the most recent Ice Age, as research has revealed many Ice Ages over many millions of years. The Pleistocene Epoch ended with the last Ice Age about 10,000BC and it is that Ice Age that saw the emergence of modern peoples around the world. During this time huge glaciers grew and slowly crushed their way down mountains with such force that they created entirely new valleys. Europe was particularly hard hit by the Ice Age with much of the north of the continent permanently under enormous volumes of ice. To the south of the ice was arctic-like tundra and then open grasslands. Forests grew much further in the south. To us, much of it would seem an almost inhospitable environment but out ancestors not only survived but even thrived there. If I could go back in time I would love to visit Europe during the most recent Ice Age. The art from that era and continent is so incredibly beautiful; caves systems such as Lascaux,  Altimira, Les Trois Frères and the recently discovered cave of Chauvet; the Venus figures found right across the continent; sculptures and jewelry have filled me with awe for many years. The art of my ancestors never ceases to amaze me and I have the greatest respect for their achievements.

When I was fifteen I came across a novel called ‘The Clan of the Cave Bear’ by Jean M. Auel about the adventures of Ayla, a young Cro-Magnon (fully modern human) girl who, after being orphaned from her family, is adopted and raised by a Neanderthal clan. Though her mental abilities are greater than her adoptive family, she is treated as an outsider until eventually she is forced to leave for good. It was a wonderful story full of intricate detail about that era that was thoroughly researched by the author over many years. Since then Ms. Auel has written further books which continue the European Ice Age adventures of Ayla with the most recent one being ‘The Shelters of Stone’. (Incidentally, one of AiG’s UK/ European writers, Philip Bell, wrote an article for ‘Creation’ magazine about Tarpan horses and in the footnotes to his article he clumsily wrote,

‘17. The ‘prehistoric’ horses which feature in a recent children’s novel, The Shelters of Stone (by evolutionist Jean M. Auel), were inspired by the Tarpans from the Stroebels’ Genesis Equines ranch.’ (Vol.26 No 2. March-May 2004 page 51).

How many ‘children’s’ novels does Philip Bell know of that are 765 pages long and feature graphic and intimate details of sexual intercourse? My guess is, since the book was by an ‘evolutionist’ Bell didn’t even bother to read it. ‘The Shelters of Stone’, ‘The Clan of the Cave Bear’ and the rest of the books in the series are not children’s books at all. Since he considers them to be ‘children’s’ books, I wonder if he has given them to his children to read? Probably he hasn’t, since he made it so very clear in his footnotes that the author Jean M. Auel is an ‘evolutionist’. Anyway, the past had come to life for me from these books, and it started my journey into Europe’s ancient past that culminated in my traveling to Europe at the age of twenty-one to further my study into the lives of my ancestors.

Ask the folks though at AiG about the Ice Age and they’ll tell you that it followed Noah’s Flood. Why would they claim such a thing? Not only did none of my Scripture teachers say that the Ice Age followed Noah’s Flood, but it seems nobody else has ever said such a thing ever, except AiG. I looked through the Bible and found no mention of the Ice Age. I went to my local Christian bookshop and found no mention in any of the books there about the Ice Age. I looked in Bible companions, I looked at illustrated Bibles, Bible commentaries, the lot, and none of them mentioned the Ice Age as a Biblical event.

‘In summary, the Flood and its aftermath provide the volcanic dust and gasses that bring the summer cooling indispensable for the Ice Age. Water from the “fountains of the great deep” and mixing during the Flood provides a warm ocean. In the mid and high latitudes the warm ocean would cause copious evaporation and produce massive amounts of snow’ (‘Frozen in Time’, Michael Oard, page 76)

The “fountains of the great deep” referred to above is from Genesis 7:11. The author of the article seems to believe that the ‘fountains’ is something like a volcanic eruption, though the Bible makes no mention of volcanism in this instance. Again, it is their interpretation which we are dealing with, an interpretation designed solely to support their notions of what they think occurred. In fact, they are reading far more into ‘fountains of the deep’ and using it as an excuse to introduce volcanism to the Flood/ post-Flood world. Scientists tell us that the most recent Ice Age lasted from about 110,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago which allowed the glaciers to slowly grow in size and begin their gradual advance down mountains and in the process carve new valleys and other geologic features.

Eventually, as the climate again warmed up, the glaciers retreated and melted causing the world’s oceans to once more rise. Ice Ages affect the entire Earth and have a profound effect on virtually all creatures and environments. It is indeed a long process. But AiG give the whole thing only seven hundred years for the glaciers to form, move hundreds perhaps thousands of kilometres, grind and crush smaller mountains while simultaneously creating new valleys. Then, just as fast, the whole thing reverses itself and the Ice Age abruptly vanishes. The implication here is that, for example, the Egyptian civilisation emerged during the Ice Age, for AiG maintain that Egyptian civilisation  began about 2,188 BC and the Ice Age ended about either 1650 or 1750 BC. This means that the pyramids must have had snow on them in winter! Is there any mention in any Egyptian text of an Ice Age? None that I could find, and the reason for that is simple, ancient Egypt did not exist concurrently with the Ice Age. The Sumerians and Babylonians didn’t write about an Ice Age, the Chinese didn’t write about an Ice Age, the Bible doesn’t mention it… but strangely, AiG believes there was one during the time of these ancient civilisations.

AiG have adopted the Ice Age as a Biblical event when in reality the Bible makes no mention of it, despite AiG trying to pretend that certain passages in the Book of Job are references to such an event. It seems AiG knew that they couldn’t just act as if the Ice Age never occurred, for evidence of ancient global cooling is, well, global. Even AiG admit that there is evidence of this drastic change in world weather. Therefore, since they had accepted that the Ice Age was a real event, they knew they had to try and fit it somewhere into the Bible. With the issue decided upon they must have then scanned the Old Testament for anything that sounded ‘cold’ and found one or two things in the Book of Job. The issue of the Ice Age is a classic example of AiG trying to make the Bible fit their version of history. Under the heading ‘Is The Ice Age Biblical?’, ‘The New Answers Book 1’ states,

‘It is possible that the Book of Job, written about 500 years or so after the Flood, may include a reference to the Ice Age in Job 38:29-30 which says, “From whose womb comes the ice? And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth? The waters harden like stone, and the surface of the deep is frozen”. However, Job could have observed frost and lake ice during winter in Palestine, especially if temperatures were colder because of the Ice Age. The reason the Ice Age is not directly discussed in the Bible is probably because the Scandinavian ice sheet and mountain ice caps were farther north than the region where the Bible was written. Only an increase in the snow coverage of Mt. Hermon and possibly more frequent snowfalls on the high areas of the Middle East would have been evident to those living in Palestine’. (Michael Oard, page 216)

Since Noah and his family experienced the Flood, the volcanoes, the new landscape and the Ice Age, it does beg the question that since Noah lived for nearly a thousand years, why he or anybody else never found the time to write about their experiences. Why was it that only the Flood got into the Bible and the other geologic, meteorological events didn’t? An Ice Age is a pretty big thing to overlook so why no clear mention of it? It seems so unbelievable that neither Noah, nor his family or their descendants thought the Ice Age worthy of mention. In Ken Ham’s book ‘Did Eve Really Have an Extra Rib?’ on page 63 he asks himself the question, ‘Was there really an Ice Age?’, and then answers himself with a befuddled explanation about volcanoes and continental breakup which caused the Ice Age. He excitedly ends his conversation with himself with,

‘The answer’s in Genesis and its account of the Flood!’

Actually it doesn’t seem to be there at all. Ken’s just saying it because he hasn’t actually got any real evidence and that the Bible clearly makes no mention of the Ice Age whatsoever.

AiG is fond of saying that they take the Book of Genesis literally, that a literal reading of it is the cornerstone of their organisation. Consider the fact that there is no scriptural basis for an Ice Age whatsoever. So, AiG interpret the passage ‘Out of whose womb comes the ice?’ to mean an Ice Age so that it can support their own version of past events. How peculiar it was then to read in ‘TJ’ magazine,

‘…it is unwise to read more into biblical texts than the context warrants.’ (Volume 18(2) 2004 page 44).

This was from an article about Job, the Pleiades cluster and the Orion constellation and was about how creationists (seemingly as opposed to Christians), should be wary of trying to find real cosmological data in the Bible, at least in the Book of Job. Why then is the Ice Age supposed to be a real event as described in Job? Clearly, the Bible is not talking about an Ice Age and AiG is clutching at straws. Even AiG’s former resident weatherman Michael Oard (who jumped ship to ‘Creation Ministries International’) in his book ‘Frozen in Time’ said,

            ‘The Ice Age is not mentioned in the Bible; it is a climactic deduction from the biblical event of the flood.’ (pages 132-133)

           

By believing in an Ice Age interpretation without any Scriptural evidence, AiG seems to be ignoring what the book of Job is really all about. (A man losing all he has and yet he never turns against God). The messages and lessons to be learned from the Book of Job are being smothered and diluted by all this nonsense of an Ice Age. Just drop the whole Ice Age shtick and let The Book Job get on with what it is trying to say.

Human Origins at the Smithsonian

Human Evolution by the Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Thanks to Kevin McDonald from the Australian Skeptics (Hunter Skeptics).

AiG really really don't like 2001: A Space Odyssey

Perhaps science fiction’s greatest achievement on the big screen is Stanley Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey,’ released in 1968. ‘2001’ is perhaps at the top of my list of favourite films. Its technical brilliance, mysterious narrative and phenomenal imagery still fills me with wonder every time I watch it. Every man and his dog has an opinion about the film and I certainly wasn’t surprised when I discovered that AiG had also put in their two cents worth. 


A fellow named Mark Looy (who gratefully acknowledged the considerable assistance of Dr. Carl Wieland and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, both at that time integral parts of AiG and now with ‘Creation Ministries International’) wrote a review of the film called ‘2001: A Space Oddity’. (10 January, 2001) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2001/01/10/a-space-oddity

It wasn’t really a film review at all, as direction, cinematography, editing and so forth were not mentioned; rather, it was pretty much just a criticism of the film’s evolutionary themes. Obviously Mark has no notion whatsoever of the importance of ‘2001’ to the history of cinema. Outside creationist circles the film is looked upon with near reverence for what it accomplished and how it still remains one of Kubrick’s most incredible, enigmatic and imaginative pieces of cinema. But all that doesn’t matter to Mark, because since the film has evolution in it, it must be no good. What Mark clearly demonstrated with his article was his lack of understanding of the film in the first place, as he says,

‘This long–yes, often dull movie–appears to be Kubrick’s encapsulation of human history, with also a glimpse into the future (although the filmmaker’s intent in this fable probably was not to foretell much about the future).’

Was not to foretell much about the future? If Mark knew anything about Kubrick, and he doesn’t seem to, he would have known that Kubrick spent years researching his films and trying to make them as accurate as possible. Of course when dealing with future technology there is always speculation, but Kubrick was obsessed with trying to make his future look believable. In the book ‘Stanley Kubrick: A Biography’, Vincent LoBrutto wrote,

‘Kubrick was monomaniacal in pursuing an accurate depiction of the universe in the year 2001. He asked leading aeronautical companies, government agencies, and a wide range of industries in both the United States and Europe to share their prognostications about the future.’

And by the way, I didn’t find the film dull at all; rather I saw it as perhaps the greatest achievement of one of cinema’s true geniuses. Under the sub-heading ‘The plodding plot’, Mark says,

‘The film opens with a lengthy scene of ape-like creatures (resembling ‘Australopithecines,’ which many evolutionists claim were ‘missing links’–poorly costumed by Hollywood standards).’

Which Australopithecines is he referring to? Anthropologists have identified several different types including some that were quite robust and upright, very different from the knuckle walkers depicted in the film. Secondly, the ape-like costumes used in ‘2001’ were fantastic. Not only did the costumes give the actors total freedom of movement to run, jump and tumble, but the faces were animated with opening and closing mouths and various facial expressions. Mark might also consider the fact that ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ was not a Hollywood film, it was made, like so many of Kubrick’s films, in England with a mostly English crew. Kubrick always liked to work independent of Hollywood. Mark then goes into AiG’s evolution-is-the-cause-of-all-earthly-problems mode with,

‘The embryo, which floats in space back toward Earth, has an apparently super-large brain, adding overtones of Nietzsche’s evolutionary ‘superman’ (which so influenced Hitler’s thinking). The theme music from Strauss’s ‘Also Sprach Zarathustra’ (‘Thus spake Zarathustra,’ 1896) further makes the point — this was ostensibly composed as an homage to one of Nietzsche’s Darwin-inspired writings of the same title (1883-84).’

So according to Mark’s thinking, just because the baby has a big head automatically means that ‘2001’ has a connection to Nazis, and that the baby is now a metaphor for suffering and warfare? Only AiG could make a link like that. Kubrick’s choice of the music which Mark cites is certainly relevant to the film, but Nietzsche is often misrepresented in that his beliefs about a ‘superman’ or what he called an ‘overman’ is an individual who exerts power not over others but largely over himself, to be truly independent and free to explore creativity and imagination. Others may misread Nietzsche to justify totalitarianism but when one gets back to basics, the connection is not to be found. Anyway, Kubrick had actually employed a composer by the name of Alex North to score ‘2001’ but eventually Kubrick decided to use none of his music. As so often happens when making a film a director will use pre-recorded music temporarily to help convey the feel or mood of a scene until the actual commissioned music is ready. Sometimes a director will get so attached to the temporary music that he ends up using it in the film instead of the music some poor composer has slaved over for months creating. This was the case with ‘2001’.

Part two of Mark’s ‘film review’ is even lighter on film discussion, in fact it’s pretty much non-existent. When briefly mentioning the astronauts search for intelligence Mark writes,

‘The world, however, does not need to send space ships or point telescopes into the corners of the universe to answer this question about the origin of intelligence. The answer has already been sent to us in the revealed Word of God…’

What a narrow, closed little world Mark seems to prefer. No exploration, no discovery, no imagination. As Captain Benjamin Sisko said is ‘Star Trek: Deep Space Nine’, “It is the unknown that defines our existence”. Right on, Ben.


It's a shame that Mark cannot see beyond his own religious beliefs and recognize a truly brilliant piece of cinema. He doesn't have to like it of course, and certainly there are many non-religious people who don't like the film either, but Mark is, for want of a better word, forced to dislike it because it doesn't square with his religious beliefs. This aspect of religious fundamentalism is perhaps one of the saddest; being forced to ignore truly great artistic achievements.

Dinosaurs, Noah's Ark and Medieval England

Dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark. Yep that’s right, according to AiG Noah had to collect all the animals including dinosaurs and find places for them on his boat. And feed them, water them, clean up after them, stop fights with other species and so on.

When promoting the simultaneous existence of dinosaurs and man in ancient times AiG hint that there is a wealth of information out there to support their case. For many years creationists believed that the Paluxy river bed tracks in Texas contained both human and dinosaur prints together, thereby proving the co-existence of these two species thereby proving creation. But as the years went by and more investigations were carried out, most creationists, including AiG, dropped Paluxy from its galaxy of evidence.

When one investigates other ‘evidence’ for the coexistence of Dinosaurs and Man, it turns out to be a lot of mythological stories about dragons, a few fuzzy paintings on rock walls that could be just about anything, (ancient peoples sometimes depicted fictional animals such as the ‘unicorn’ from Lascaux in France) and not much else. AiG’s old ‘Answers Book’ on page 245 showed an illustration of some bearded fellow with a spear fighting a large and very vicious looking meat eating dinosaur on his own. If he was successful in felling the beast (which I doubt) it makes me wonder why no dinosaur bones have been found that show evidence of being hunted by man? We have the remains of Mammoths, horses, ibex, musk-ox and many other creatures from Ice Age Europe that show signs on their bones of scratch marks from stone tools that people used to cut away the flesh. If a community of people could bring down one of the large docile dinosaurs it could have provided food for a very large number of people. In archaeological excavations of ruined towns and settlements in the Middle East we should then expect to find broken up dinosaur bones in cooking areas, in hearths and in refuse pits. But we don’t. Why would people not hunt such huge meaty animals? Also, if dinosaurs were wandering around the Middle East during Biblical times, why no firm mention of them in the Bible?* Or any other ancient book for that matter? Why no mention of dinosaurs in Sumerian, Babylonian, Minoan and Egyptian texts? Such massive, terrifying creatures you’d think would be the source of many epic stories that would have found their way into the Bible and lots of other ancient literature.  

In the September – November 2003 edition of ‘Creation’ magazine, AiG-UK writer Philip Bell discussed the tomb of Bishop Richard Bell (no relation apparently). Bishop Bell died in 1496 and was buried in Carlisle Cathedral in northern England. The Bishop’s tomb is decorated with a number of etchings of animals like a pig, a dog, and a bird amongst others. There are however a couple of etchings that are harder to discern (due to the tombs age and centuries of feet – the tomb is on the floor of the cathedral) but Philip Bell is quite convinced that these unusual looking creatures are actually meant to represent dinosaurs. The implication here is that Philip Bell believes that dinosaurs were wandering around Northern England in the late fifteenth century. Specifically, Bell describes them as Apatosaurus and Stegosaurus. On page 43 of the magazine, figure 4 shows a photo of two of the creatures. Bell says any school child would identify them as dinosaurs. To my eyes they both look like some type of large cat, perhaps a lion. Bell on the other hand is convinced that what he is seeing are medieval dinosaurs,

‘…Figure 4 shows two dinosaurs engaged in a struggle (or perhaps courtship!)’ (page 42).

If dinosaurs were living in late fifteenth century England it means that they were also present during the Norman invasion, during the Viking raids, during the Anglo-Saxon migration and settlement, during the four centuries of Roman rule in Britain etc. Did any of these people write about dinosaurs? If such impressive creatures were glimpsed trekking across a province of the Roman Empire, wouldn’t the Romans have been keen to capture a few and toss them into the Colosseum like so many other exotic animals for amusement? The Romans loved novelty and the bizarre so dinosaurs would have been highly prized as entertainment. Did William the Conqueror have to do battle with a few T-Rex’s before he could march on London in 1066AD? Did Geoffrey Chaucer write about dinosaurs, did Shakespeare? Where is the evidence of recently deceased dinosaurs in England? Has Philip Bell ever thought to stop for a moment, sit down and really think this through? Dinosaurs in England just over five hundred years ago with no mention of them in any text or manuscript? No physical evidence, no stories, no illustrations? England has always been a densely populated nation with the vast majority of its land well and truly under the plough. Even five hundred years ago much of the forest cover had already been removed, so where exactly did these creatures live? At night did they just lay down in some farmers’ field? Bell’s evidence doesn’t even rate as flimsy, and his conclusion is hilarious to say the least. He goes on to say,

‘Of course, not everyone will be convinced that these beasts are indeed dinosaurs. Many people are so ‘evolutionized’ that they feel compelled to explain away what they see as an anachronism. For example, the Canon Warden of Carlisle Cathedral wrote the following letter to David Jolly (AiG-USA): ‘These motifs include various sorts of vegetation, birds, dogs, fish, a bat, an eel and several mythical beasts. I do not think that the word “dinosaur” is appropriate in this context. The decoration is typical of the period, and is in no way unusual or unremarkable’.’ (emphasis added in AiG’s article). (page 43).

Looks like the Cannon Warden of Carlisle Cathedral is one of those poor people who have been irrevocably ‘evolutionized’. Or maybe he is just an intelligent man who knows how to recognise a crackpot theory. If Philip Bell thinks that people are going to be convinced that dinosaurs lived in Northern England during the Middle Ages by nothing more than a worn old tomb that depicts typical fifteenth century art, then he is in for a great disappointment. One doesn’t need to be ‘evolutionized’ to realise that Philip Bell’s conclusions are utterly absurd; simple common sense will do that. His article is further proof (if any were needed) that AiG will latch onto anything, no matter how feeble, to ‘prove’ that their creationism is right.

*AiG actually do claim that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, but I’ll cover that topic at a later date.

Extra-Solar Planets

To get the ball rolling in terms of actually analysing AiG's claims, I thought I'd start with something pretty straight forward and not too long...


His article ‘The existence and origin of extrasolar planets.’ (TJ 15(1):17-25 April 2001) by Wayne R. Spencer concerned the search for and explanation of the origins of planets outside our own solar system. After a lot of fault-finding with theories about the formation of solar systems, Wayne wrote in bold letters (just so we would get the point),

‘It is much simpler to explain the existence of the extrasolar planets if they are viewed as less than 10,000 years in age and as being supernaturally created.’

What is surprising about Wayne’s suggestion that extrasolar planets should only be thought of as being supernaturally created is that it appeared in their ‘Technical Journal’ magazine, claimed to be THE place for really impressive creationist scientific investigations into our world and the universe. How could a ‘technical journal’ claim that an event was supernaturally created?


And even more curiously, AiG was convinced that planets outside our solar system didn’t exist as recently as 1995 when A.J. Monty White wrote in ‘Creation’ magazine,

‘The death of the astronomer Professor Peter van de Kamp was announced in early July, 1995. This scientist devoted his life to the fruitless search for planets that encircled other stars.’ (The search for planets around other stars, ‘Creation’ Vol 18, Number 1, Dec 95-Feb 96).

Clearly, A.J. didn't believe that planets outside our solar system existed. Today however, AiG now accept that planets in other solar systems do exist and further more they believe that they know more about them than anybody else. On their website in 2003 they had a rundown of one of their new issues of ‘TJ’ magazine with a brief description of what articles could be found inside the magazine. On the subject of extra-solar planets they wrote,

‘The results from the discovery of a new planet are not what evolutionary cosmologists wanted to find. The fascinating new find of an extrasolar planet orbiting a binary star dents conventional evolutionary thinking, and so far, they have no explanation.  Is this more evidence of God’s amazing creativity confounding the sceptics? Creationist cosmologist Robert Newton explains.’ (TJ 17(3) 2003).

So in 1995 AiG plainly didn’t believe in the existence of extra-solar planets, but a mere eight years later they felt they knew better than anyone else about how those planets formed! What a sudden and rather embarrassing change of direction for AiG.


Overall, this is an example of AiG believing one thing wholeheartedly on day, and then completely changing their beliefs the next. Additionally, these extra-solar planets were found by secular, real astronomers, not by creationist-astronomers. The creationist-astronomers were however happy to use the hard work of the real astronomers. Either creationist-astronomers are lazy, or... well actually they do seem to be lazy. 

Fair and Reasonable Criticism - Fair Use and Fair Dealing

AiG didn’t like my book (and were not willing to give their permission for me to reference some of their work) because I was analysing and consequently criticizing their beliefs (I mean really, dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark??) Having looked into Fair Use and Fair Dealing, I’m pretty sure I could have had my book published anyway despite their in-house attorney telling me I wasn’t getting their permission to quote them. Whether for a book or for a blog, Fair Use/ Dealing is a common sense thing and I believe I have and will continue to observe its freedoms and parameters.

Here’s the opening lines from the article titled ‘Fair Use’ from Wikipedia.

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

The above snippet pertains to United States law, so I also looked into Australian Law and discovered that here we have what is known as Fair Dealing.

Copyright Act 1968 – Section 41

Fair Dealing for the purpose of criticism or review

A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of criticism or review, whether of that work or of another work, and sufficient acknowledgment of the work is made.

(http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s41.html)

This blog is not for financial gain, it will properly acknowledge the various authors that I may reference in posts to come, and all up the blog is a sober, in-depth and intelligent examination of what AiG believe.

I hope all this makes AiG realise that I do in fact have the right to write about them and to quote from their literature. For heaven’s sake loads of other blogs and websites have done so, and criticised AiG with impunity, so my little blog here shouldn’t offend them, but alas probably will.

An outline of my dealings with AiG

Dealing with ‘Answers in Genesis’ (AiG) over the years has been a trying and ultimately futile endeavor. It’s become clear to me that if one’s views are not sycophantic of theirs then the road of communication is going to be a bumpy one, no matter how polite one is.

From memory, and whatever paperwork I’ve still got around from those days, I first got in contact with AiG back in January 2003 when I was considering some sort of documentary about them. Carl Wieland was the CEO of the organisation back then and seemed happy for me to undertake such a project. I had met Ken Ham, the founder and undisputed leader of AiG, just before Christmas 2002 and he had mentioned to me that “something” was possibly happening soon, something profound and important. I must have mentioned it to Wieland in a letter because he wrote back saying that whatever the “something” was, wasn’t really that big a deal yet and that any developments would be a long time coming. Okay, cool.

But then things soured. In March 2003 Wieland again wrote to me, but this time he was a lot less friendly. He seemed to be under the impression that I was “pumping” his staff for information about the “something” that might or might not be happening later that year. This was certainly not true.

If it was mentioned it was only in passing, indeed, I had other far more important questions to ask. Obviously word gets around AiG fast, unfortunately, it seemed to travel rather inaccurately. The reports being delivered to Wieland were greatly exaggerated and showed more than a bit of paranoia.

Another problem Wieland had with me concerned the time a staff member at a lecture wanted to know details about me, for example my age, if I was single or married, what was my job, where did I live etc, but I refused; not to be difficult, merely because I just didn’t think it was any of his business. What was I hiding? Something terrible no doubt. Why did an AiG staff member want so many details about me anyway? The letter continued with,

‘Please do not attempt to circumvent this situation via our staff, to avoid the embarrassment of having to be told by them that they will no longer be answering your questions at any level on any subject.’

Whenever I had attended an AiG lecture I always introduced myself to the person giving the presentation, told them my name, what I was doing there and the permission I had gained to be there, then I went and sat quietly in amongst the gathering. When I asked questions I was always polite and respectful and enquired about things that were pertaining solely to their claims and their published works. It seemed apparent to me that Wieland had circulated my name amongst his staff and instructed them not to have any dealings with me. So was this how AiG dealt with an ordinary member of the public who asked sound, reasonable questions: blacklist him.

In their literature they portray themselves as being an honest, friendly and open organisation with nothing to hide, yet they then go and make it apparent that mistrust and suspicion are possibly a very real part of their psyche. Wieland then said ‘You are of course free to write whatever you like and to use material from the public domain or our publications, whatever’.

He then ended his letter by saying that if I had any questions of a ‘seeker’ nature, then I could write to him directly. Exactly what a ‘seeker nature’ is I’m not sure, but if it meant asking intelligent and polite questions at appropriate times with complete respect then that is exactly what I had been doing all along. I just wanted to know about AiG and what their beliefs were. But Wieland took an extremist stance and immediately labeled me as someone his staff had to avoid. His letter was more illuminating than irritating for it clearly illustrated that AiG has no hesitation in shutting out the world, or individuals, who are not kowtowing to them about their claims. I was always sincere and up front and told them what I was working on.

The doco project had changed to become a book and it was that book that I worked on, literally, for years. I even got a publisher interested in it. But my publisher made it clear that I would need permission from AiG for all the quotes I had used from their literature. I thought that if I properly referenced it and used it in a professional, analytic manner then I could get away with it. But no, I had to get their permission, so I wrote to them.

As part of my book I examined, though not in great detail, the split that occurred back in late 2005 and early 2006 whereby AiG dumped their Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and South African offices and only retained their US and UK ones. When I set about seeking permission to use their quotes I was soon put in contact with Anthony J. Biller, AiG’s in-house attorney. (Carl Wieland was gone by this point, heading up ‘Creation Ministries International’ (CMI)). This was early 2011 and Anthony wasn’t too pleased that I was reporting on the AiG split from their founding overseas colleagues. He basically refused me permission to use their quotes and made especial mention of the split. He felt I was republishing “defamatory” material and that the matter of the split had been dealt with and was now old news.

When I queried him on this he offered that if I were to remove the offending chapter re: the split then they (AiG) might look more favorably on granting me the permission I was seeking to get my book published. He went so far as to suggest that, should the chapter be exorcised, then AiG “would not anticipate objecting” to me using their materials, as long as that use was fair etc. Ok, fine, whatever, I’ll take the chapter out. This was in May, 2011.

I then sent him the revised manuscript with the troublesome chapter removed and waited for his response. And waited, and waited, and waited. It wasn’t until December 2011 (seven months!) that I finally heard from him. I believe the only reason he (finally) wrote back was because I had informed him that my first book had now been put aside in favour of a new book that focused solely on the AiG split and that its research material was being sourced from the public domain. In other words, I wouldn’t need his or AiG’s permission in any way shape or form. I had also contacted several people who had experienced, first-hand, the split and surprisingly they were willing to talk to me about it. Certainly made for interesting reading.

Anthony was not a happy chap and seemed to be saying that I had no right to write a book about the AiG/CMI split. He felt that any book that examined the split was going to be illegal in some sort of vague way, though he never specified any actual legal precedents. He was also antsy about who I had been speaking to about the split and wanted their names.

I quickly wrote back to him that there are loads of websites and blogs out there that have discussed and analysed the AiG/CMI split and they clearly exist with impunity, so why get so huffy with me? I also made it clear that I was not beholden to him to reveal my sources.

Anthony wrote back and said, “You have a right to write, however, you also have a duty not to propagate lies, particularly if they hurt people”.

Writing a book that looked at both sides of the argument between AiG and CMI would not be propagating lies in any way, it would rather be an examination of the causes of the split, why it happened and so on. Does this mean that no one can or should have written books about Watergate because it might “hurt people”? For heaven’s sake Anthony, get real.

There was one more email that I sent to him where I basically said that yes I was free to write and that any legal action on AiG’s part would be “selective prosecution” because of the umpteen numbers of other people out there writing about AiG’s behaviour and history. This was, so far, the last correspondence I’ve had with AiG.

It’s a shame that Anthony and AiG in general weren’t more professional and mature in their communications. The amount of suspicion and defensiveness that has emanated from them over the years is quite disturbing, but very interesting. I’m sure to them I’m just a pain in the arse, but from my point of view I worked hard to research their beliefs and I always corresponded with them politely and respectfully.

Should I have expected anything else from them? I guess not. 

Here's why I started this blog.

I first became aware of the ‘Answers in Genesis’ organisation when I was at a girlfriend’s house, waiting for her while she got ready before going out. Sitting on the sofa I knew I was in for a long wait as it was almost half an hour before I even heard the shower being turned on, so I began to rummage through the various books and magazines she had piled up on a nearby coffee table, looking for something to read. I knew my girlfriend was a Christian and that she went to church every Sunday; I even went with her on a few occasions albeit reluctantly. Two things however I was unaware of. Firstly, I had never heard of creationism, and secondly, I didn’t know she was a creationist. I found a booklet in amongst the pile of junk mail and bills about Noah’s Ark, dinosaurs and how evolution was wrong. What an odd little booklet I thought, dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? I quizzed my girlfriend when she finally appeared from the mists of the bathroom about creationism. She informed me that she believed it all.

It wasn’t long before I found a publication called ‘The Answers Book’ in a Christian bookshop which was a publication of an organisation I had never heard of before, ‘Answers in Genesis’. Chapter one seemed harmless enough for it was titled, ‘Does God Exist?’ Chapter two was about the six days of creation; my curiosity not picking up on the apparent nuisances of difference between those who believe in a ‘young Earth’ and those who believe in ‘long ages’. I had no idea as to what the Gap Theory was and so continued onto chapter four where I found information on carbon 14 dating. This was a little bizarre I thought, why was a book on Christianity devoting a whole chapter to a scientific method of determining dates? Though no expert on the process, I have had a great interest in archaeology and ancient history for a long time and knew something about C-14. Chapter five and beyond was a cavalcade of graphs, charts, diagrams and illustrations, each as cold as the one before, and all seemingly pointing out that everything science has to tell us about the history of our planet is wrong, that the Bible is the literal truth on everything, that ‘real’ science fully supports the Book of Genesis, and that the theory of evolution is a Satan backed movement designed primarily to keep people from finding Jesus and salvation. It almost seemed as if it were science and not the Bible that they were relying upon to dazzle us into becoming Christians. “Were these people serious?” I wondered. “Do they really believe this stuff?” I could barely conceal a giggle when I saw an illustration of Job standing next to a dinosaur on page 234. I shouldn’t have laughed I thought because these people must have a very good reason for depicting such a fanciful encounter. This creationist stuff was wacky, confusing, freaky, and absolutely fascinating… I had to know more.

Over the following weeks and months I read all the books she had on the subject and soon starting tracking down other information about it on the internet, in bookstores and libraries. There seemed to be all kinds of creationists out there; some could be called ‘young-earthers’, like AiG, while others termed themselves ‘old earth’ creationists believing the Earth was anywhere between one hundred thousand to a few billion years old. Some creationists accepted bits of evolutionary teaching while others didn’t. But in all my reading one organisation kept cropping up, ‘Answers in Genesis’. Not only did they seem to be the biggest and most affluent (their web site, glossy magazines and plethora of books bares witness to some kind of wealth, and the fact that at the time they were - and have now completed - building a multi-million dollar museum in the United States) but it turned out their Australian headquarters was about twenty minutes from my house in Brisbane. These people were in my backyard! (They’ve now since dumped their Brisbane roots and replanted themselves in the United States).

In all the discussions, arguments and battles over the evolution/ creation issue the combatants have almost always been scientists, theologians, professors, doctors and so on with the ordinary people, the lay-people, caught in the middle of it all. All around us people with beards and lots of pens in their pockets are trying to win us to their side yet it seems no one had ever asked us, the general public, what we think about it all. We are the ones being preached to so what is opinion? In virtually all of AiG’s publications they drive home the point about the public being indoctrinated into believing that evolution is fact, and that people only believe in evolution and other non-biblical issues because that is all they hear at school, on television, in movies, and so on. As a layman myself I am supposedly one of the evolutionary indoctrinated masses they refer to. AiG goes on and on about how they have all the answers to everything, that they are right on all counts about absolutely everything, and that everyone should be listening to them and what they have to say on the subject of origins. So I thought, what if a lay person actually did investigate the claims of AiG in detail? Essentially, how does the ordinary person (me) think and feel about the type of creationism put forward by AiG by way of reading their literature, asking questions and forming my own opinions? If they have all the answers as they seem to think, then I wanted to know what those answers were and how they arrived at them. And as a reasonably intelligent and fairly well educated fellow, I felt I was more than capable of bringing my own life experiences and knowledge to the field of creationism and seeing what would result. So I set myself the task of reading as much AiG literature as I could and comparing what various writers within that organisation said on such diverse topics as dinosaurs, the Flood, evolution, astronomy and morality, and in addition comparing all that to what mainstream science had to say.  I came to realise that what I really wanted to know was how AiG proved/ justified their beliefs. If you are going to tell me that the Earth is only 6,000 years old then it is hoped you will have some pretty good evidence and brilliant arguments to back that up. A few Bible quotes and some carefully selected ‘science’ just wouldn’t cut it. You can say anything you want, you can say the moon is made of cheese if you wish, just make sure you are able to make a convincing argument. So I gave AiG a chance to convince me of their beliefs and I gave them my full attention. Literally every day I visited their web site, I read as many back issues of their magazine as I could get my hands on, I attended their lectures and I purchased their books. (Thinking back on it I guess I may have been one of their best customers!) Somehow AiG seemed to have all the truth and knowledge behind everything no matter what the topic. This one organisation could talk with absolute authority on everything from plate tectonics to human migration, to DNA analysis, erosion, supernovas, climate - nothing seemed beyond them. Each issue of their magazine was a journey through a bewildering variety of scientific fields with virtually every article concluding that the theory of evolution was nothing but a hopeless worn out old lie designed to dupe a gullible public. My reading of their literature prompted me to start asking questions of experts, and so I began making phone calls and sending off emails and letters to gain further insight into the issues which AiG tackled. Week after week, month after month I accumulated a collection of scientific facts, scientific theories, religious viewpoints, books and magazines, all from both secular and creationist camps. As the avalanche of data and opinion began piling up I came to realise that I needed to start recording my thoughts and findings about this particular group, and so I began writing…

If AiG were ever to read this blog I’m sure they would say I was just another “brainwashed evolutionist who never tried to understand our message and who deliberately set out to try and find fault with us.” This is certainly not the case. As far as was humanly possible I tried to have an open mind about AiG’s claims and entertained the idea that maybe they might be right about some things. If they were really onto something and could prove their case more than what evolutionary scientists could then I’d certainly have signed up. But as the months and years rolled by I found that I wasn’t being won over to their side; the more I read the more inconsistencies and contradictions I found in their arguments and their reasoning. Though defining themselves as being a literal Bible-believing group I discovered that they did indeed place their own unique interpretations on many Bible passages that perhaps other people would not have, and they even came up with historical events not even found in the Bible to help prove their claims. I will always remain a layman on the topic of evolution vs. creation, but at least now I am a layman who has read enough from both sides to know which side to choose, and I have a sneaking suspicion that if others did as I have done they too would reject the shaky claims of creationism.

I gave AiG the chance to have their say with an open, sober mind but for many reasons they failed to make me into a convert. This blog is the result of my examination of AiG and how I came away being convinced that their claims were based on very carefully chosen evidence and that their reasoning was frequently conflicting, blinkered and often at odds with itself.