Answers In Genesis

Hey everyone, You may have noticed the "Got Questions?" section at the sidebar of my blog. Our family visited the Creation Museum recently. It is absolutely superb! Not only is it being built true to the literal account in Genesis, but everything about it is so professionally done that it will simply floor you. When I was surfing the Answers In Genesis website, I came across a FAQ in the technical section: "Can I link to AiG?" Since I already linked to their website, I decided to take a look. They have a great way to link to them . . . JavaScript-powered displays that change every time a page is refreshed. To see the list of optional javascript displays, click here. Put one on your site! Not only does it spread the word about AiG, but it also makes for a great eye-catcher and e-conversation starter! Cya, guys! In Him, David


Anonymous said...

That would have been entertaining. The science on AiG webpage is extraordinarily bad so I can't imagine what the museum would be like.


David S. MacMillan III said...

I must point out that what you said is very interesting. I'm sure that "anonymous S" knows much more science than the 50+PhDs on staff at AiG.

If you think that the AiG science is bad, please give me an example.

The Museum is professionally done, and it has basically the "same kind of science" as the answers given for the questions that rotate on my site.

But yes. Give me an example of the "extraordinarily bad" science at AiG.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that "anonymous S" knows much more science than the 50+PhDs on staff at AiG.

Some things I probably do, some things I probably don't. However, this begs the question of why you trust 50+Phds from AiG instead of the tens of thousands of Phds of all faiths who think the kind of science peddled by YECs is bunk. My guess to why you trust them is that you have been raised from a very early age to believe in the inerrancy of the bible. Having strong opinions but little training in science you cannot evaluate the arguments from the different sides on their own merits so you throw out what ever it is that agrees with your bias.

If you think that the AiG science is bad, please give me an example.

I have on NeoFascist's blog. The 2nd Law arguments they make and the ones about genetic infomation are no good. We can argue about them so more but before we do so we should agree on definitions. My problem with AiG is that they give properties to the 2nd Law that it does not have--they are essentially creating their own 2nd Law and using that to argue to the conclusion they want to. We can continue to argue this point and I can give examples of experiments that don't agree with their interpretation and point you towards P-Chem and statistical mechanics books that undermine their claims but it will be useless unless you actually try and understand the material.

When AiG isn't making their own version of science they often seem to want to completely overblow scientific controversies to make it seem like their exist problems in a theory that it's practitioners don't see. To take one example, consider this article on cosmology whose quality is typical of that which you find on AiG.

There are a number of things wrong with it but I'll only point out a few things. For example, consider this:
Then there are the observations of Tifft. His data were from galaxies from in all directions in the sky showing that redshifts are quantised, or come in discrete amounts. The big bang F–L cosmologists discount these observations as they don’t fit the standard model.

This is misleading. Cosmologists don't believe in Tifft's results because they can't reproduce them. Tifft saw quantization of redshifts because he had systematic effects in his analysis and he used a small sample size. Naturally Hatnett does not mention the irreproducibility of Tifft's results.

BOOMERANG data...suggest that the universe is filled with normal matter, no exotic particles, no cold dark matter (CDM).

This is just flat out false. Look at what the BOOMERANG colloboration published and you will see this contradicts Hatnett's article.

The claim of the big-bangers that Gamow successfully predicted the CMB temperature in 1948 with a value of 5 K (later in the 1950s raised to 10 K), is undermined by the fact that McKellar successfully predicted a 2.3 K temperature, in 1941, from observation of absorption lines caused by quantum mechanical features of rotating diatomic interstellar molecules

This is a bizarre historical aside. Here is an excerpt I have from a book on the history of BB theory:

The energy density in the CMBR is very similar to the energy density of ambient starlight in our own Galaxy.  Observations of the excited states of the CN molecule made by McKellar (1941) indicated excitation by a photon background with a characteristic temperature
of 2.3 K.  But since the CN molecule could only be found where the Galaxy was, the excitation was attributed to the ambient energy density of starlight in the Galaxy as opposed to being energy external
to galaxy (like the CMBR). The initial measurements of Penzias and Wilson indicated that the flux density of photons at their receiver was independent of position in the sky.  Failing to see any 24 hour modulation of this signal, the remaining logical conclusion was that the CMBR was indeed of cosmological origin and therefore everywhere. Further observations of this CMBR showed that its spectral signature was identical to that of a blackbody, as predicted earlier by Gamow.

So I don't see how this helps Hastnett's case since McKellar's theory wouldn't have explained the lack of modulation in the signel. Thus Hastnett can't use this example to argue there are multiple explanations for the CMBR.

For one article I took a few examples and showed the shoddy level of scholarship in it. I could go on, believe me, but I think I've made my point. This is typical of AiG's articles--when they are not giving non-standard interpretations of scientific theories they are taking a minor scientific controversy, blowing it out of proportion, and making it look like a real problem wherein it is not to the actual practitioners of the scientific discipline. So to me this looks more like propaganda than a true scientific argument. This is why I think the science on their webpage is extraordinarily bad.