Ignoring the Plank: A Young-Earth Apologist Inadvertently Writes a Brilliant Critique of Young-Earth Creationism

This is both serious and with humour, on how a Young Earth Creationists criticises flat-earthers.

The arguments against a flat earth are similar to those of a young earth

AIG creationists talk themselves into a corner

Naturalis Historia

How should a movement dedicated to science denial warn its adherents against the evils of science denial? Young-earth creationism finds itself faced with just this problem as some of its followers slip toward the flat-earth fringe.

Answers in Genesis, the leading young-earth apologetics ministry, has responded by critiquing the flat-earth movement in a series of articles over the past several years. Ken Ham mentioned a flat earth just a week ago but a fuller—and most revealing, as we will see—response was issued in June (Reflections on the Flat-Earth Movement). Written by the organization’s resident astronomer, Dr. Danny Faulkner, the article comes hot on the heels of similar critiques in January 2019 and November 2018, both of which were preceded by several additional articles intended to debunk a flat earth. 

Why is Answers in Genesis so obsessed with addressing the far-fetched idea that the earth is flat? Is it…

View original post 2,440 more words

5 thoughts on “Ignoring the Plank: A Young-Earth Apologist Inadvertently Writes a Brilliant Critique of Young-Earth Creationism

  1. Paul Braterman

    As I commented on the original post, the Old Testament, at least, was brought to us by people of a specific time and place who presupposed a stationary flat Earth resting on pillars. And, however one regards its status, it is none the worse for that.

    The Young Earth Creationists, wishing to avoid the absurdity of Flat Earthism, are then forced, as this article shows, to use against Flat Earthism exactly the same arguments that the rest of us, whatever our positions on religion, use against Young Earth Creationism.

    There is a curious kind of chess problem, where the object is to find the one move that will force your opponent to checkmate you. The Young Earthers would appear to have done just that.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. wkdawson

    An amusing irony for sure.

    It mystifies me how Faulkner can reconcile the purported 6000-year-old earth with any real astronomy and yet rail at the flat earthers for stubbornly adhering to nonsense, but that is for another day.

    In a way, I actually liked the flat earth issue because it forced me to think about ways to test which proposition is true. The spherical earth is taken so much for granted as fact that I had not questioned how I actually know it is true. What I notice is that the flat earthers become evasive when I ask them to try some of those tests. That is also the thing I’ve noticed with cranks who claim Einstein was wrong, etc. The person who really wants to know the truth will keep seeking it.


  3. Lonnie E. Schubert

    If one substitutes “climate change alarmism” for either flat earth or young earth, doesn’t it work out the same? With climate, it is the alarm I object to. It is the fundamentalism of the advocates that make me call it a religion rather than science. You and I and Braterman are too old to see it, but 100 years from now, as climate alarmism finds itself on its actual last legs, observers will write articles like yours pointing out where dogma and other blinders hindered progress that could actually help. Alarmism has always proven false. It will with regard to carbon dioxide as well.


    1. Paul Braterman

      I’m not sure a response is called for; but are you saying that climate change alarmism (a deliberatdely crafted indefinable) has as little evidence as YEcism of Flat Earthism? If so, why do the receding glaciers, rising sea levels, shrinking icecaps, and soaring temperatures not count as evidence? If not, what are you saying?


    2. wkdawson

      I think we would all be very grateful to find that you are right. However, experience tells us that when we do things to excess, there are typically unfortunate consequences. Too much MacDonald’s, and you increase the likelihood of becoming fat. As Paul points out, we may very well be seeing some of those unfortunate consequences beginning to appear with respect to climate.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s