On Creationist Statements of Faith

https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/2025/01/on-creationist-statements-of-faith.html

Creationists' "Statements of Faith", or How Creationists Disqualify Themselves from the Right to Claim that they are Scientists.  

This goes to the heart of what is rotten about creation "science" and why it is inimical to science and to science education. Several for-profit creationist covens have similar declarations. As usual, on my pages, my comments are in red, commenting on creationist material which is in black.

From Kenny Ham,

• "In order to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture and to provide a biblical role model to our employees, and to the Church, the community, and society at large, it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith, to include the statement on marriage and sexuality, and conduct themselves accordingly."
  
• "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Whose definition is this, I wonder? Is it yours, Ken? Are you an infallible person who possesses all information? Clearly, by your own admission, you cannot be. 

As "Anonymous" says in the comments, "Remove "apparent, perceived or claimed" and the statement is more honest." No evidence can be valid if it contradicts my beliefs." The "apparent perceived or claimed" crap is just a way of undermining the evidence and making what they're saying seem more reasonable. Oh we're just rejecting "claimed" evidence. It's just "perceived" evidence. No. It's evidence. You're rejecting evidence."

As for the "scientists" who write for Answers in Genesis and for similar for-profit creationist blogs, acceding to this statement is tantamount to abdicating your positions as scientists. Regardless of whether or not you have scientific qualifications and a track record of scientific achievement, to relinquish the basic scepticism inherent in the scientific mindset is to relinquish science. Presuppositionally plumping on an outcome and seeking to promote it, whatever the evidence actually suggests, is an anathema to science. Indeed, we gain confidence in scientific ideas precisely because we seek to destroy them and see if they withstand our examinations and tests, rather than shield them from such examination. The fact that they withstand testing is the way in which we gain confidence in their veracity. If creationist ideas were true, they would not need to be corralled away and protected from examination in this way. To sign up to a faith statement like this is essentially to admit to having no confidence whatsoever in the truth of creationism! It should be an unnecessary statement if creationism is indeed true. A statement like this is only necessary because creationism is fundamentally unsupportable.

Creation Ministries International, also has, on its "What we believe page", https://creation.com/what-we-believe,

• "Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

But of course, the first sentence does not apply to the writer!



We can tell from this that scientific evidence is of no value or significance whatsoever to these people. They will only try to sound "sciencey" if they can cherry-pick or distort evidence to try and fool their marks. It is a thoroughly cynical and dishonest activity. And it is also the height of arrogance to believe that the nature of the universe has to meet with your personal approval.

See also, "The Doctrine of Personal Infallibility" https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2019/02/the-doctrine-of-personal-infallibility.html?

Here's a summary from AI GPT-4. 

"The blog post criticizes creationist organizations, particularly Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, for their "Statements of Faith," which, according to the author, disqualify them from being considered as scientists. The "Statement of Faith" asserts that no evidence, regardless of the field, is valid if it contradicts scriptural records. The author argues that such a statement rejects the skeptical mindset inherent to science and the principle that scientific ideas gain credibility through rigorous testing and examination. The author further alleges that these organizations cherry-pick or distort evidence to align with their beliefs, disregarding the inherent value and significance of scientific evidence."

"Cargo cult science" is a term introduced by the great Richard Feynman to describe pseudosciences that assume all the trappings of real science. It is a "pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis". https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/kkk-kreationist-kargo-kult-science.html

https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/2025/01/on-creationist-statements-of-faith.html

We don't need no information

We don't need no facts at all

Duane Hunt comments @ https://www.facebook.com/groups/31425129128/posts/10168436659354129

Answers in Genesis absolutely uses a faith statement, and it is one of the most explicit and restrictive in the entire creationist world. It requires all employees and researchers to sign a doctrinal statement that predetermines conclusions before any research is done. This is not a secret; it’s foundational to their identity.

 1. What the Answers in Genesis faith statement includes. Its required statement affirms, among other things:

- A young Earth (6,000 years old)

- A literal 6‑day creation

- A global flood

- Special creation of all “kinds”

- Rejection of evolution in any form

- Rejection of an old universe

- Biblical inerrancy in a strict literalist sense

... and crucially: its staff must agree that no scientific evidence can ever contradict Scripture as interpreted by Answers in Genesis. This is the opposite of the scientific method, which requires conclusions to be revisable based on evidence.

 2. Why this matters in scholarly discussions. When biblical scholars, ANE historians, and scientists evaluate Answers in Genesis, they note:

- The conclusions are fixed in advance

- The research is not hypothesis‑driven

- Evidence is filtered through doctrinal commitments

- Conflicting data is reinterpreted or dismissed

... this is why Answers in Genesis is classified as a religious apologetics ministry, not a scientific research institution. Even conservative Christian scholars who accept biblical authority (e.g., John Walton, Tremper Longman, C. John Collins) acknowledge that Answers in Genesis’s approach is not scientific because it forbids falsification.

 3. Yes — Answers in Genesis uses a strict faith statement, and signing it is mandatory for employment. This doctrinal requirement predetermines the outcome of all their “research,” which is why their work is not considered scientific by mainstream scholars, Christian or secular. If you want, I can also compare:

- ICR’s faith statement vs. Answers in Genesis

- How these statements differ from actual scientific research norms

- How early Christian interpreters understood Genesis (hint: not like ICR).

 4. Why a faith statement is a red flag. If creationism were empirically strong, a faith statement would be unnecessary. You don’t see:

- physicists signing a pledge that the speed of light is constant

- geologists signing a pledge that plate tectonics is true

- biologists signing a pledge that DNA is the hereditary molecule

... those ideas stand because they work, not because they’re protected. A faith statement is only needed when the evidence is not allowed to speak freely.

 5. Answers in Genesis isn’t doing science — it’s doing apologetics. This isn’t an insult; it’s a classification. AiG explicitly requires employees to sign a doctrinal statement affirming:

- a young Earth

- a global flood

- special creation

- literal Genesis

- rejection of any evidence that contradicts these points

... that is not a scientific posture. It is a theological one. And theology is allowed to do that — but it cannot call itself science while doing so.

 6. Your deeper point is the strongest one. You’re saying: If you have to protect an idea from evidence, you don’t trust the idea. That’s the heart of it. Science is confident because it’s vulnerable. Creationism is vulnerable because it demands confidence. Those two epistemologies cannot be reconciled.

 7. The irony you’re pointing out is real. By signing a statement that says: “I will never change my mind about this,” a creationist scientist is implicitly admitting: This idea cannot survive open inquiry. If it could survive, the statement wouldn’t be needed. That’s the paradox you’re exposing — and it’s a powerful one.

Evolutionary theory and science in general has been through a number of changes where people have struggled to convince the scientific "establishment" of their ideas. Here are a few examples.

1) Lynn Margulis was an American evolutionary biologist, who was the primary modern proponent for the significance of symbiosis in evolution. In particular, Margulis transformed and fundamentally framed biologists' understanding of the evolution of the Eukaryotes, organisms with nuclei in their cells. (Wikipedia)

2) John Ostrom - birds descending from dinosaurs.

3) Howard Temin and David Baltimore. - reverse transcriptase (violated the "cental dogma" of microbiology).

4) Alfred Wegner - plate tectonics

5) Barry J. Marshall and Robin Warren - bacteria causing stomach ulcers. it was previously thought that the environment of the stomach was too acid for bacteria to survive. Now ulcers are easily treated with antibiotics. This would have saved my father whose abdomen looked like someone had been repeatedly playing noughts and crosses on his belly to get in and remove significant parts of his stomach and duodenum.

All of the above struggled to get their findings accepted, but eventually did, by using evidence and reason. Some eventually received Nobel prizes.

This is how our scientific knowledge advances, by being open to change however difficult changing it can sometimes be. Contrast this with fixed, rigid religious dogma. Creationists resolve and swear to be immune from evidence and reason if it challenges their irrationally pre-conceived beliefs.

This is why creationism is stuck - a useless broken clock.

Reply

Share

Edited