Why should we trust creationists?

I recently encountered a forum discussion on MySpace where an individual was attacking Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis and The Creation Museum in Kentucky. This gentleman pointed out that Ken Ham is simply a science teacher and, therefore, shouldn't be taken seriously. He gave other reasons why Mr. Ham shouldn't be trusted. His Australian education, the time period in which he was educated, etc. His point was that people should take Mr. Ham's teaching with a grain of salt. This individual also made a very poignant statement, "The scientific journals NEVER publish creationism. The stuff never holds up to peer review. These guys are virtual pariahs in the scientific community." Below is a copy of my response to him from that forum:


Phil, you are right. Ken Ham is a science educator, not a scientist. That, however, doesn't mean he is incapable of communicating the fundamental beliefs of both evolution and creation. I've listened to my share of seminars and talks given by Ken Ham and he has never claimed to be an expert on anything, only a disseminator of knowledge. I know for a fact that Mr. Ham believes in the concept of peer review. I know this because he has spoken out against creationists who do not submit their work to the many creation science peer review groups that are out there.

Ken Ham originally went to work for the Institute of Creation Research. If you look at that particular organization, you'll notice that all the staff and faculty are well qualified research scientists who have paid their dues in academia and can claim to know a thing or two about their particular field of study. When Mr. Ham started Answers in Genesis, there were many other qualified scientists in both Australia and Europe who joined with him. Dr. Sarfati is one that comes to mind. Dr. Sarfati and his colleagues have since started a separate organization called Creation Ministries International. He and his team are qualified scientists as well and their goal is to do internationally what AiG does here in the United States. I am currently attending Liberty University and work as a TA in the science department. All of faculty here are ardent Biblical creationists and anti-evolutionists. Many of the faculty members here are published (not just in creation publications), and are doing research in many different fields. Dr. David DeWitt, for example, is doing Alzheimer's research AND he is a guest speaker and author for Answers in Genesis.

If you go to the AiG website, you'll see a link underneath the "Get Answers" tab that says "Creation Scientists". There you'll find a list of qualified scientists that believe in Biblical creation. Now, I bring that up simply to note that Answers in Genesis has a slew of qualified, brilliant scientists who cooperate with them to ensure that the articles and publications that they release are accurate and professionally done. The scientific community, whether evolutionists, intelligent design advocates or creationists, depend greatly on peer review. Answers in Genesis isn't a research institution, they are an educational institution. Now that they have opened the Creation Museum, I have heard that they plan on branching and incorporating research programs by hiring PhD holding scientists. I don't work for them, so don't quote me on that, but the point I'm trying to make is that even though Mr. Ham had the vision for Answers in Genesis, he is not necessarily the scientific brains behind what he and other AiG speakers talk about. In fact, I'm sure he has never made any claims that he himself has done any research. The speakers they hire simply educate on what has been found by the qualified creation scientists around the world. Many, many professionals in many, many different fields work together to ensure accurate and up-to-date information being presented to the public.

Now to your question regarding the lack of creation scientists who publish in scientific journals. You have to realize that the scientific community as a whole are a very prejudice bunch. If atheistic evolutionists manage or run the majority of the scientific journals out there, do you think they are going to allow a creationist to publish something in their journal that either supports Biblical creationism or criticizes evolution? I think not. That also explains why the large TV networks like Discovery Channel, TLC and Animal Planet don't have any such programs on either. He who pays the bills, dictates what kind of subject matter is presented. In 1981, Professor Sir Edmund Leech addressed the annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science. He is quoted as saying the following:

"Many well qualified scientists of the highest standing would today accept many of Wilberforce’s criticism of Darwin … today it is the conventional neo-Darwinians who appear as the conservative bigots.”

Conservative bigots...that's exactly what one faces if he or she doesn't conform to the evolutionary worldview. It doesn't matter how many post doctorate degrees a person has. They will be ostracized by the secular scientific community for not supporting a dogmatic pseudoscience which actually is a religion in scientific clothing. This is why you see organizations like AiG, the Institute for Creation research, the Discovery Institute and others. The scientific community is more like an austere old country club full of prudes who don't want anything to ruffle their intellectual feathers.

Don't take my word for it or Ken Ham's word for it. Go to websites like www.icr.org and www.creationontheweb.com. Read the technical articles for yourself and see if the authors are doing nothing but spouting scripture and dancing around the real science. Rest assured that there are a multitude of ridiculously brilliant scientists, mathematicians and philosophers out there (whether Christian or not) who are apposed to evolution. Now, there are some retarded clergy out there who think that evolution and the Bible can be reconciled. They, quite frankly, embarrass me. But I don't need the support of clergy or pastors to show that evolution is bunk and Biblical creationism is justifiable and sound, science is on my side.

~THT