Apologetics (apol·o·get·ics \-tiks\, n.)
1. systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine).
2. a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity.
Defend (de·fend \di-ˈfend\, v.)
1. to fight in order to keep (someone or something) safe : to not allow a person or thing to hurt, damage, or destroy (someone or something).
2. to fight or work hard in order to keep (something, such as a right, interest, cause, etc.) from being taken away.
3. to speak or write in support of (someone or something that is being challenged or criticized).
Regardless of my personal proclivities regarding young-Earth creationism, I now have a gigundous issue with the folks at Answers In Genesis. Actually, I have a problem with any religious endeavor that claims something in the name of any deity, then acts in direct contravention of their claims…but we’ll stick to the issue at hand. It seems that AiG, despite their claims of being an “apologetics ministry,” doesn’t necessarily like it when their beliefs are questioned, no matter how politely.
Case in point: Earlier today, I was commenting on one of AiG’s post threads, when I noticed another of their posts, having to do with some resource on young-Earth creationism. (But of course!) One gentleman made the following comment:
“I’m amazed when I hear pastors and evangelists talk about the earth being billions of years old. Forget all the facts to the contrary, if they’re going to pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe, then what business do they have asking anyone to believe the gospel?”
I posted a short reply to the comment, which read as follows:
“Pardon…what facts to the contrary?”
Now, keep in mind that I had previously commented elsewhere on the page, in defense of Atheists and their possessing just as much of a “sense of purpose” as believers, with no hint of an issue from page admins. My simple six-word quandry with regards to YEC, however, didn’t garner quite the same response; I was immediately banned from further commentary, and all of my comments were scrubbed from their page.
I have no problems with censorship, when judiciously balanced against things such as the “harm” and “offense” principles. When someone’s commentary or behavior transgresses established rules and mores, there does need to be some measure of control. This, on the other hand, was nothing of the sort. It was an unabashed, blatant silencing of a simple interrogative. In other words, the folks at AiG do not like having their beliefs and positions questioned. Anyone that does, will be silenced. This is their definition of “apologetics.” (A friend of mine subsequently posted the same question, with the same respect. Her posts were also scrubbed.)
This isn’t the only problem with AiG, though. For a 501-c that’s supposed to be dedicated to Christian Apologetics and the defense of their young-Earth creationist, literal take on the Bible, lately they’ve sure devoted a lot of time to going on the offensive against Atheists. In the past year, Answers in Genesis has spent almost 200k dollars on billboard advertisements, pointing their judgmental finger at non-believers. (1) (I don’t recall this being part of either the Genesis, or any other part of the Bible’s narrative.)
Ken Ham and AiG are not interested in engaging in any honest dialogue with regards to their beliefs. Their sole mission seems to be a one-sided, monologuing approach. They’re out to pontificate. That being the case, the statements that they have made to the contrary on both the AiG and Ken Ham pages on sites such as Facebook…are lies. Like the inept nefario from a super-hero television show, they’ve been caught monologuing. Perhaps we should be looking at some other “Webster-words” with regards to Answers in Genesis, such as:
Hypocrisy (hy·poc·ri·sy \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\, n.)
1. the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel.
2. a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.
Poltroonery (pol·troon·ery \-ˈtrü-nə-rē, -ˈtrün-rē\, n.)
1. mean pusillanimity : cowardice