A sneak peek at the ‘latest creation research’

Cutting-edge research will be presented at the Answers Mega Conference later this month, according to no one's expectations (illustration by Gustave Doré, public domain).

Answers in Genesis is prepping for its “Answers” “Mega Conference” and “Research” “Summit,” a four-day event scheduled for later this month in Sevierville, Tenn., that is billed as presenting the “latest” creationist “research.” AiG President Ken Ham blogged about the to-do earlier this week, while also plugging the “Answers Research Journal,” AiG’s “professional,” “peer-reviewed” “technical” “journal.”

In other news, the U.S. Department of Punctuation is warning of a sudden and severe shortage in the nation’s supply of scare quotes.

At first, I thought this had to be some kind of a hoax. I mean, how can creationists even do research? Their discipline is entirely apologetic in nature. In other words, if there were no evolutionary theory that these guys felt compelled to “refute,” there would be no creation science. This is why young-earth creationism proponents are losing their audience: They are fundamentally incapable of producing anything new. The sum of their work will always necessarily boil down to, “Well, the Bible still says this.”

At least, that was my thinking before I contacted AiG and requested an advanced listing of their conference agenda, which is reproduced below. Now, I see the error of my ways. As you’ll no doubt agree as you browse through the research topics and presenters, this conference is for real, encompassing the latest advances in not only biology, but also geology, astronomy and social science:

A detailed critique of radiometric dating methods reveals compelling new evidence that we still don’t know what the hell we’re talking about | by AiG employee and mechanical engineer Bodie Hodge

Proof of creation: Laminin looks like a cross if you see a diagram of it instead of an electron micrograph | by pastor/scientist Louie Giglio

The real unforgivable sin: Textual analysis shows “blaspheming the Holy Spirit” in Mark 3:29 should actually be translated “believing in evolution” | by “author of numerous magazine and journal articles and several book chapters” Terry Mortenson

Learning to cope: Techniques for dealing with the pain of cognitive dissonance | by AiG employee and retired physician or something Tommy Mitchell

Nephilim and the Hendersons: Another study tying obscure Bible passages to rigorous cryptozoology | by AiG employee and retired university professor David Menton

Effects of endotoxin-induced cytokine gene expression independent of day length and circulating cortisol in unicorns | by AiG employee and former track and field star Mike Riddle

“Let’s put the scaly ones with the slimy ones”: The latest advances in baraminology research | by Kurt Wise, director of the Creation Research Center at Truett-McConnell College

The effectiveness of scare tactics on Christian parents and their impressionable children | by child propaganda specialist Buddy Davis [Editor’s note: AiG contacted me back and informed me that this item, which is actually the theme of its annual staff retreat, was put on the conference agenda by mistake.]

A reappraisal of relative dating methods and other foundational principles of modern geology | by an electrical engineer

Modeling the panchromatic spectral energy distributions of galaxies; also, light used to travel millions of times faster than it does now | by son of convicted tax-dodger Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind

The conservative Christian’s place in politics: Yes | by former House Representative and misguided anti-gay pundit Tony Perkins

Truthy Wuthy? A microanalysis of biblical creationist overtones in “Teletubbies” | by keynote speaker Ken Ham

And, finally, for those of us who once claimed that creation scientists have never produced any useful new advancements, I’ve just learned that K-Ham and the crew will also be unveiling their latest incarnation of the top-secret Project Noah. No, it’s not the Ark Encounter. Project Noah is AiG’s ambitious doomsday device, a machine that will prove a global flood is possible once and for all, by making one happen! The machine works by punching a hole in the firmament to rain down all of the water that the Bible says is stored up there. Hey skeptics, it worked once, it can work again!

Admittedly, K-Ham has had some trouble with the device in the past. The first time he attempted to switch it on, in 1985, he accidentally just opened a massive tear in the ozone layer, and the second time, 10 years later, he was thwarted by the Avengers. But he’s pretty sure he’s got it right this time.

So, make sure you’re all supporting the Ark Encounter so you have some place to go when the rain starts falling. If you don’t live near Petersburg, remember there are ark replicas conveniently located all over the world.

See ya in Sevierville!

Before you book your conference tickets, why not take a second and Like us on Facebook? We promise: There will be no shortage of available seats.

Tyler Francke

  • Race Hochdorf

    That was hilarious.

    • Glad you liked it!

    • Zachary Lawson

      I lost it at “thwarted by the Avengers”.

      • Don’t think too hard about it 🙂 It was just a throwaway reference, with “Project Noah” being a doomsday device and all. Also, I read too many comic books when I was a kid.

        • Zachary Lawson

          No, no I meant I lost my composure because it was hysterical. 😛

  • Sherry McCameron Peyton

    too funny. I expect they are all attending the shysters, hucksters, and grifters convention in Las Vegas too. Gosh these guys make such a nice living off the sad wishes of the uneducated.

    • I would argue that Ken Ham’s “Answers Mega Conference” IS the “shysters, hucksters, and grifters convention” you’re talking about 🙂

  • Alan C

    That was worthy of the Wittenburg Door!

  • R2D3

    Theistic evolution is bad science and bad theology.

    http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth03.asp

    [snip]

    Phillip Johnson says naturalists define words like “evolution” and
    “science” in such a way that naturalism is true by definition. He said in
    World magazine: “Evolutionary science is based on naturalism and draws
    philosophical conclusions to that base. That’s why any theistic evolution
    is inherently superficial. It leads people into naturalistic thinking, and
    they don’t realize it.” (Nov. 22, 1997, p.13)

    • Well, if that’s what Phillip Johnson thinks, I’m convinced. Seriously, Johnson is famous for equivocating on various terms, and that’s exactly what he does here. If by “naturalism,” he means methodological naturalism (the study of what exists in nature without any regard to the supernatural), then evolution is absolutely based on naturalism, as is all science. However, in the third sentence, it is clear that by “naturalistic thinking,” he is really referring to philosophical naturalism (the belief that nothing exists but the natural world, and there is no supernatural). Evolution is not based on philosophical naturalism, and it is no more capable of “leading people” to that end that any other scientific idea.

  • myklc

    I feel the only way you could have made this funnier would have been to use the actual agenda.

    • What makes you think that’s not exactly what this is?? 😉

  • :chuckling: Insert f-bomb here.