Shopping Cart -

Your cart is currently empty.
Upgrade to today
for only an extra Cxx.xx

You get:

plus This issue of xxxxxxxxxxx.
plus Instant access to the latest issue of 480+ of our top selling titles.
plus Unlimited access to 40000+ back issues
plus No contract or commitment. If you decide that PocketmagsPlus is not for you, you can cancel your monthly subscription online at any time. Auto-renews at €11,99 per month, unless cancelled.
Upgrade for €1.09
Then just €11,99 / month. Cancel anytime.
Learn more
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
IT
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the Italy version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Leggi ovunque Read anywhere
Modalità di pagamento Pocketmags Payment Types
Trusted site
A Pocketmags si ottiene
Fatturazione sicura
Ultime offerte
Web & App Reader
Regali
Loyalty Points
70 MIN READ TIME

Response to Ken Ham and YouTube Comments by Andrew Snelling

Lorence G. Collins

After my article “Twenty-One Reasons Noah’s Worldwide Flood Never Happened” was published in the March/April 2018 Skeptical Inquirer, the creationist organization Answers in Genesis produced a YouTube video in which Andrew Snelling criticized some of the reasons I presented in the article for why such a worldwide flood could not have happened (see https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2018/04/02/christian-equips-atheists-debate-christians/). Snelling, a geologist, is director of research for Answers in Genesis. As a lead-in to this video, Ken Ham pointed out that there were many people working for Answers in Genesis with PhDs who are well trained in science and who support the interpretations presented by Snelling, and he implied that my science was not as good as theirs.

In the course of the video, Snelling argues that I have preconceived uniformitarianism views that differ from the biblical ones that the young-Earth creationists have. However, in either case, because the creationists call themselves “creation scientists,” our differences in opinion must be based on scientific evidence and not necessarily on our positions with respect to interpreting the Bible. The young-Earth creationists interpret it with a literal translation, whereas I and most other mainline Christians who are scientists do not believe that the Bible was written to be a science textbook. I believe that the Hebrew authors of the Old Testament of the Bible were inspired and wrote their books based on their understanding of what they thought they knew during the time in which they lived. I believe that the Bible portrays who God (the Creator) is, why he created the universe, the Earth, and life (including humans), and how to obtain salvation. It does not answer the questions of when, where, and how creation was done. Science answers these questions.

In Ken Ham’s introduction and in the video, there was no attack on me for being a Christian, but he, Snelling, and others from Answers in Genesis were irked that I had published the article in Skeptical Inquirer and gave ammunition to atheists to attack the young-Earth creationists. Snelling essentially threw down the gauntlet, so to speak, and challenged me to give real scientific evidence. Not replying to his challenge is really not a choice for me, as he claimed that I had not “done my homework.” Therefore, in this follow-up response I have chosen five of the twenty-one reasons to demonstrate that Snelling has not done his scientific homework. There is not enough space in this short response to give scientific justifications for all twenty-one reasons I provided. Here are the five reasons that I address.

Read the complete article and many more in this issue of Skeptical Inquirer
Purchase options below
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Digital Issue July/August 2018
 
€2,99
This issue and other back issues are not included in a new Skeptical Inquirer subscription. Subscriptions include the latest regular issue and new issues released during your subscription.
Annual Digital Subscription €16,99 billed annually
Save
5%
€16,99

This article is from...


View Issues
Skeptical Inquirer
July/August 2018
VIEW IN STORE

Other Articles in this Issue


Editor’s Letter
We were on a walking trek in wilderness Tanzania. Our
NEWS AND COMMENT
CBS is one of America’s premier television networks. It practically
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must take a much
In March 2018, a month after the fact, the FAA
Longtime radio talk show host and paranormal promoter Art Bell
“A lie can travel half way around the world while
The mystery of Ata the mini-mummy began when seemingly humanoid
With their book UFOs, Chemtrails, and Aliens, Donald R. Prothero
RESEARCH REVIEW
New NTP Results Inconsistent; Random Chance Likely at Play
SPECIAL REPORTS
In the 1970s and 1980s, belief in the paranormal was
On March 18, 2018, CBS Sunday Morning featured O an
The Halloween 2017 terror attack in New York brought forth
INVESTIGATIVE FILES
Joe Nickell, PhD, is CSI’s senior research fellow. He has
BEHAVIOR & BELIEF
Stuart Vyse is a psychologist and author of Believing in
SKEPTICAL INQUIREE
Benjamin Radford is a research fellow at the Committee for
FEATURES
Demand for wildlife body parts for scientifically unproven medicinal remedies and paranormal trinkets is causing a world-wide crisis for many endangered animal species, including rhinos and elephants
A leading skeptic addresses the essence of contemporary skepticism and highlights the vital nonpartisan and science-based role of skeptics in preventing deception and harm
An alternative birth practice called lotus birth—not cutting the umbilical cord after delivery—is a poorly studied phenomenon with high risks and low benefits. It’s also not traditional; the fad dates back only to the 1970s
Several years ago, I came across the manual for a
A nineteenth-century Spanish story offers a devastating critique of pseudomedicine. In at least twelve ways, it anticipates the bogus rationales offered for today’s quack medicine
An Alleged Dinosaur with Breasts in a Medieval Carving
REVIEWS
In 1997, Michael Shermer wrote I one of the classics
Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
NEW AND NOTABLE
AT LEAST KNOW THIS: Essential Science to Enhance Your Life
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
In his survey of the academic backdrop to today’s rampant