|
Is AiG Helping
or hindering? – Part 1 Note
from Scientific Differences between Answers in
Genesis (AiG) and the Center for Scientific Creation (CSC) Sometimes people write or call to ask
for my response to a sincere and credible person or organization that
publicly disagrees with me.
Instead of interacting with that third party, I try to go to the
person who disagrees and let the third party observe. Doing so saves time, minimizes
misunderstandings, helps me learn, and allows the third party to identify any
error or fault. I consider Ken Ham and his organization,
Answers in Genesis (AiG), both sincere and credible. Although I am aware of no biblical
differences we have, there are some scientific differences. More and more people are asking me
about those differences, and Ken Ham and his organization are increasingly
spreading their version of our differences in large forums where I cannot
respond directly. They have never
approached me to discuss these differences, but I have always sought to deal
directly with them as described above. Here are three examples. You will see some common elements, and
may surmise what lies behind these differences. 1. In
1994, I received a letter from Ron Hillestad,
President of Master Books, originally the marketing arm for books and videos
of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). He said he had heard good things about
our book In the Beginning: Compelling
Evidence for Creation and the Flood (5th Edition, 1989) and he
was considering adding it to their catalog. He asked for, and we sent him, a
review copy. Two months later, Ron wrote back and
said that he had asked Ken Ham to review the book. Ken recommended that Master Books not
carry the book, because it contained one paragraph on the “moon-dust
argument” which Ken said had been discredited. Therefore, Ron said Master Books would
not carry In the Beginning. (Previously, many creationists had
asked for our reaction to AiG’s and ICR’s rejection of the “moon-dust
argument.” We always
answered the inquiries as best we could without criticizing either group.) I gave little thought to Ron Hillestad’s rejection until shortly after the 6th
edition was published in 1995.
During a series of speaking engagements in I then offered to telephone Ken Ham
from Ron’s office and discuss the 2. AiG has
published several articles on the frozen mammoths of Siberia and What surprised me during that
80-minute conversation was that I needed to say very little. Lea, who had a scientific background before
becoming a pastor, tore into the false logic, poor science, and basic
questions Michael had ignored—questions the Hydroplate Theory answers
clearly and simply. If Michael
wasn’t embarrassed, he should have been. So should AiG. In September 1999, after seeing AiG’s hostility toward CSC, Pastor Lea flew from I wanted to
appeal to Ken to at least read Walt’s book. I gave Ken a copy of In the Beginning. In our meeting,
Ken was hostile and arrogant toward Walt personally and toward the hydroplate
theory. Ken didn’t provide any technical arguments and admitted that he
had never read Walt’s theory. I left the material with Ken and
encouraged him to read it with an open mind. The
following May (2000), Ken was a guest speaker at our pastors’
conference. Following his presentation, I asked Ken if he had read the
materials I gave him the previous September. Ken said he had not. What was shocking
to me was Ken still refused to read Walt’s book, even though the
hydroplate theory is the only flood theory which explains many aspects of the
flood and answers the questions of where the water came from and where it
went. I contacted
other prominent AiG and ICR detractors of Walt’s theory trying to learn
their technical reasons for disagreement. Not one responded with any kind of
technical argument, written or oral. What continued to shock me, was that none had read the book. One detractor, Russ Humphreys
of ICR, agreed to make a technical response if I would send him a free copy
of the book. Six weeks later, he told me that he still had not read the book,
did not intend to, and would not make any kind of technical response, since
he knew the catastrophic plate tectonics was correct and therefore the
hydroplate theory had to be wrong. After years
of seeing this hostility, I have concluded that the root cause of this
problem is spiritual. The Biblically and scientifically sound hydroplate
theory could be a “silver bullet” in the wicked heart of the
evolution lie. As such, Satan is using the fleshly pride and empire building
of some Christians to create confusion and division, otherwise, they would at
least read the book and be willing to debate its arguments. Pastor Lea has written an expanded
version of his conversation with Ken Ham that is attached
as ( “Is AiG Helping or Hindering? - Part 2”). Others have told me of similar
comments they have heard from Ken Ham. Note from 3. In this last example, Andrew Snelling had been spreading false information concerning
the Hydroplate Theory for several years while working at AiG. Others were repeating it in various
forums. The attached emails (can be obtained by writing Walt Brown at
“walt@creationscience.com”) include my answers to
Andrew. I first sent copies of
this exchange to everyone I mentioned in the letter. Andrew had no response. The only response was
from a person very close to AiG and ICR.
He sent a letter apologizing for having criticized me publicly for
more than a decade. He said he
had stopped doing so and had dissociated himself from Andrew Snelling’s criticisms and other named individuals
who were doing it. (I deeply
appreciated his letter and agree with his statements that “minor
quibbles” over particular flood and cosmology theories pale in
comparison to our agreement on a young earth, a worldwide flood, and other
essentials from Scripture. We may
differ on many topics, but we are brothers.) Other examples could be given. Notice the common elements: AiG
accepting a few poorly researched scientific conclusions then spreading them
to a vast Christian audience for many years, people increasingly asking me
about these errors, and my attempts to deal with the source of these errors
in front of these third parties.
What these examples don’t show is AiG’s
position hardening, and AiG spreading their distorted versions of our
differences through their far-reaching forums along with some name
calling. (Ken Ham often calls me
as “a loner.” I
frequently interact with people, including scientists, throughout the world. Many letters and phone calls arrive
daily; visitors arrive weekly.
What Ken may mean is that I do not look to AiG or ICR for approval or
direction.) CSC is getting more and more
inquiries about scientific differences with AiG. For several years, AiG distributed its
standard version of why I am misguided (can be obtained by writing Walt
Brown at “walt@creationscience.com”). Until now, I have not responded. It has now reached a point where this
is misleading and confusing many others, thereby diluting creation
science’s impact. Therefore,
I am offering to explore all of these differences with Ken Ham—and
any he wishes to have join him—in a large,
neutral forum. Several principles should guide our
exchange. 1. Ad hominem
remarks should not be allowed. As
Christians and creationists, we have much in common. We should be able to discuss our
differences rationally, calmly, and based on evidence. While we may still disagree on some
issues, we will both benefit from explaining our positions to a wide
audience. 2. Each side should be allowed the same
number of words in the exchange and should presume that the audience has read
what we each have already published, including at our respective web
sites. A neutral editor can
resolve other details. 3. Each side can discuss any scientific
difference they have. The biggest
subject, by far, will be the flood.
AiG has promoted the Catastrophic Plate Tectonic Theory and has
criticized the Hydroplate Theory.
While I am convinced that neither Ken
Ham nor his few associates criticizing the Hydroplate Theory have tried to
understand it, they do understand the Bible. The Catastrophic Plate Tectonic Theory
contradicts the biblical description of the flood in numerous ways, while
many have observed that the Hydroplate Theory corresponds to the Bible in
every detail. For example, two
days ago, I received the following letter from a scientist at the Dear Dr.
Brown, I have no doubt you
were inspired by the Bible in your research. Nobody can make mistakes with
that book as a source. The source of inspiration [for the
Hydroplate Theory] becomes clear to the reader in later chapters of your
book, after most of the material evidence is presented. When I came across
your web site (www.creationscience.com) and started reading the book, I
couldn't stop; eventually I bought a few hard copies to save my eyesight and
give to others to read. The rhetorical question I kept asking myself was
“where did he get the idea?”. Once
again, it looks like from the Bible. Nobody can logically undermine the
evidence you presented. Some neutral party will need to
moderate this exchange. Four
possibilities come to mind. There
could be others. It could be a
web site specifically for this purpose.
It could be restricted to creationists only and/or a fee could be
charged. Secondly, the exchange
could be attached to a series of newsletters of some creationist
organization. Those exchanges
could later be bundled and sold as a small book or placed at anyone’s
website. As a third possibility,
the written exchange could precede some creation conference. Then Ken and I could have an oral
exchange at the conference and attendees could be given the more detailed
written exchange. A fourth
possibility would be for AiG’s Technical
Journal to devote twenty pages in each of four consecutive issues to the
scientific differences we have as of this date. AiG and CSC would each be allowed ten
unedited pages, half of which would be devoted to comparing the Hydroplate
Theory with the Catastrophic Plate Tectonic Theory and half to our remaining
scientific differences. To aid the
reader, a neutral editor would arrange our opposing evidence and arguments as
close to each other as possible.
Probably the most difficult step will be getting Ken Ham to
participate, but he could get others to join him if he wishes. AiG has published articles and hosted
a recent conference featuring the Catastrophic Plate Tectonic Theory. AiG may not realize that the authors
of that theory will not defend it publicly against someone knowledgeable (can
be obtained by writing Walt Brown at “walt@creationscience.com”). Creationists are increasingly learning
its flaws, publishing its deficiencies, and explaining them in local
meetings. The most frequent question I get
concerning the Hydroplate Theory is, “Why haven’t I heard about
this before?” Actually more
than forty-three million people have seen a five-minute animation of it, and
about a hundred thousand people, both scientists and laymen, have heard a
two-hour presentation on it and have been able to question me at length. Perhaps another hundred thousand have
read about it in In the Beginning. (In addition, the web version of the
book receives more than 3 million hits a month. It has been on the internet since
1995.) Responses to all have been
about 99+% favorable.
Creationists who are surprised they have not heard about it may have
primarily looked to ICR and/or AiG for their information. In 1976, after explaining the theory
to ICR’s Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and Harold Slusher for
most of one day, Henry Morris asked if I would write a technical monograph on
the theory for ICR to publish. I
declined for two reasons. First,
my job as an Air Force colonel was very demanding, and second, there were so
many aspects of theory that had to be studied in depth. I retired at the earliest opportunity
from the Air Force (1980) so I could do this. Only then was I able to do enough
intensive research and thereby gain sufficient confidence in the theory to
begin disseminating it. (The
subject of the flood was much broader and the event was more catastrophic
than any of us had imagined. Also
my scientific training (PhD, MIT) and many technical assignments have taught
me to consider all aspects of a problem and not be confined to one or a few
academic disciplines.) Objections AiG gives to the Hydroplate
Theory have no scientific substance and simply show that they haven’t
read it. Those objections are:
(1) Walt Brown is not a geologist, (2) creationist geologists (meaning, the
two or three working for ICR and AiG) have not accepted the theory, (3) the theory
is speculative, and (4) Walt Brown is a loner. For several years, AiG has sent a
standard response (can be obtained by writing Walt Brown at
“walt@creationscience.com”) to people inquiring about In
the Beginning or the Hydroplate Theory. The points made—without
exception—lack specifics, do not reflect what I have written, or, if
they touch on science, are incorrect. It is unreasonable to expect
creationists to agree on every scientific detail or even on theories about
the flood. Such differences are
to be expected. I never try to
persuade a person to agree with me unless they raise the subject or ask me
for an explanation. I welcome
reasoned disagreement. What
concerns me are vague objections from those with “large
megaphones,” who show that they have not read what they criticize, who
make ad hominem comments, who will not deal
directly with you, and who do not put their opposing views to the same
scrutiny. This misleads many
Christians—a serious To resolve a scientific controversy
requires a direct exchange on a level playing field. If anyone wants specific details on
any points of scientific disagreement between AiG and CSC, they should
encourage Ken Ham to accept my offer.
I hear more criticism of the Hydroplate Theory by AiG and ICR than by
all evolutionists combined—all of it behind my back and in forums where
I cannot respond directly.
Creationists should insist that this wasteful activity cease and we
address our differences directly and forthrightly. Yes, I may be wrong. Let’s see. Having an audience observe our
exchange will help both of us see beyond our biases and address what the
other person is saying. Earlier I asked you to identify what
lies behind these differences between AiG and CSC. Certainly they do not involve biblical
interpretation. I am also
confident that scientific A bedrock principle in law is that a
person can face his accuser before a group of peers. This principle is indispensable for
quickly getting at the truth—a need in science as well as law. It also puts an accuser on notice; he better
have his facts straight. This
minimizes the number of poorly researched accusations and reduces disharmony. It is imperative that we come
together to lay our differences before others—all in the spirit of
seeking the truth and helping thousands of fellow Christians and who want to
see a clear contrasting of our positions on large, critical scientific
issues. I am ready. To Ken Ham: please don’t
dissemble, delay, or tell me to go publish an article somewhere. (The Hydroplate Theory alone, 160 pages,
is far too lengthy for an article.)
If Ken Ham refuses to participate in an exchange of scientific views,
that would be unfortunate. But at
a minimum, the backbiting must stop.
If it does not, On 10-13 February 2000, Ken Ham was a
few miles from my office in “If you wanted
to personally discuss what we are doing at AiG and what is happening in the
creation ministry worldwide, I am certainly willing to try to fit it in with
our busy schedule in I then invited Ken to come to my
office where we would have no interruptions. He declined. (Today, I have again invited Ken to
visit my office during his visit to For now, this letter is going
primarily to those who inquire or have heard about differences between AiG
and CSC. It will be sent to AiG
first. Walt Brown September 24, 2001 P.S. Ken Ham never responded to my
invitation of September 24, 2001. |