The British Are at It Again

Over the years—and particularly at the time of (and since) the opening of the Creation Museum (and since)—AiG personnel have been interviewed by many different media groups from the secular world. By and large, the secular media have been reasonable—though, obviously, sometimes mocking. However, the prize for the most outrageous reporting—often using emotional, derogatory language to attack us has to go to the British press.

Recently, AiG released news about its new peer-reviewed, free online technical journal called the Answers Research Journal. Just the news of this new journal along with the first three papers is creating waves through the secular world. It seems that some in the secular world hate it when creationists actually publish anything—many evolutionists are so paranoid these days they kick and scream and try to discredit using personal attacks (not using good scientific information, of course—just emotional attacking language as a scare tactic). They are desperate to protect their secular evolutionary views at all cost. They really don’t believe in freedom of speech—creationists have no right to do research or publish peer-reviewed papers—and creationists are wrong, anyway, because everyone “knows” evolution is fact and can’t be (and they won’t allow it to be) questioned!!!

In a recent article (more of a commentary) from one member of the British press this time concerns the Answers Research Journal; the writer states:

1. About Ken Ham: “Australian preacher Ken Ham is the head of ARJ's mother organisation, Answers in Genesis. Ham believes dinosaurs co-existed with man less than 6,000 years ago and he teaches this to children across America. In my book, that makes him immoral, deluded and dangerous”
2. About Dr. Andrew Snelling, AiG’s Director of Research and Chief Editor of ARJ: “The editor in chief, Andrew Snelling, has a higher degree from a well-respected university. To him I say ‘shame on you’. Whereas science is about the agenda-free acquisition of knowledge, you are boldly standing for willful ignorance, and using the language of science to do so. You denigrate something that should be cherished, a process that is venerated by some of the greatest minds of the modern age.”
3. In other “scientific” and “academic” language, the author makes comments like: “Short of putting two pencils up my nose and saying ‘wibble’, I’m not sure even how to respond.”

Well—you can read the entire emotionally charged article at this link—and oh, by the way, look for the powerful scientific arguments against the creationist position from an editor of the prestigious journal Nature! (There are none of course).

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/adam_rutherford/2008/01/the_creative_sciences.html You can read another web piece about our new journal on Nature Neourscience Blog, at

http://blogs.nature.com/nn/actionpotential/2008/01/call_for_creationist_papers_at.html Well—just the news release we distributed about a creationist research journal is causing waves! This is going to be an interesting year—and we’ve just started!

If you haven’t checked out the first three papers on our ARJ site yet, then I urge you to do so.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying

Ken