AiG (Answers in Genesis) is aiming for young readers who want to find out what’s gross with God–scabs, slimy sneezes, burps and blisters (No mention of farts). Their kids’ section includes a set of characters called “Super Gross Heroes.” AiG refers to their gross studies as “Yuckology.” I refer to it as backwards thinking and damaging to kids’ understanding of illness and physical impairment.
Here’s the fun fact posted for March 28th: “How would you like to sneeze at least once an hour for nearly three years straight? That’s what happened to Donna Griffiths of Worcestershire, England. She started her sneeze attack on January 13, 1981, and didn’t stop until September 16, 1983.”
AiG is intended as a site to show creation science and affirm a literal interpretation of the Bible. And on the kid’s section of the site under “Yuckology” it is to show God’s marvelous works. This is per the kid’s host Buddy Davis who says, “Hey, Kids! Buddy Davis here. Did you know that your bodies reveal how smart God is? Even the parts we think of as gross show that God thought of everything. We should thank Him for how amazing our bodies are—even earwax!” He then references Psalm 139:14 which says:
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
Donna Griffith’s body didn’t seem too smart. I just find it interesting that God gets the credit here for the “marvelous” parts and not the defects. And the irony is that they post a fun fact showing a major defect. Donna Griffiths sneezing attacks may be fun for us to read about, but I doubt they were fun for Donna.
If this is not God’s defect, I have yet to understand what the scientific effects of sin are? Where is the comprehensive theory? We’re continuously told that creation itself is the evidence of God and yet we can see all the flaws. If you’re going to infer a god through witnessing creation you also infer his nature. God’s nature is flawed. Unless apparently there is sin theory, the idea that sin mucked up the perfect creation and manifested itself in a physical manner not just a spiritual manner. But that destroys the idea that we can infer a perfect god because all we see is an imperfect creation. It doesn’t make any sense to observe imperfection and conclude perfection; it omits the obvious. We would need to see the perfect creation to infer the perfect creator–no women sneezing on the hour.
So where is this scientific sin theory? Just how does sin affect biological organisms? I tried looking for it on the AiG site starting with the Statement of Faith–yes, this includes their statements on science. There is no solid statement on how sin relates to science or affects nature. The closest I could come was Section 2, part 6: “The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.” That’s theological, not scientific. If you think you can find a statement tucked away in an article or a different part of the site please post it in the comments. I really do want to read what AiG’s sin theory says.
When I tried the search field for “Sin Theory” it ironically resulted in a server error twice. Finally, going back to Yuckology I found a statement for kids: “Some yucky things in this world, such as leprosy, remind us that the world around us isn’t how God intended it. The first two people—Adam and Eve—disobeyed God, and as a result, humans and animals suffer and die. That’s why some people get really sick and why some have to be in wheelchairs or hooked up to machines.”
So AiG is telling kids that if they get really sick it is because of sin. How about we go to a real science site, Discovery Health. Per an article called “Why We Get Sick” the Discovery author states, “The earliest physicians thought that illness and disease were a sign of God’s anger or the work of evil spirits.” In other words superstition, the kind told to kids by AiG concerning sin. Says Discovery Health, “Today, we know that there are two major kinds of diseases: infectious and non-infectious.” Good, a real science answer. Couldn’t AiG have included that information for kids as well as their theology?
Now I know many creationists are hobbyist medical doctors who like to volunteer their time for creationist causes and I know that they don’t directly buy into what is being told to kids here. They understand infectious diseases and other maladies beyond a general human condition they might consider sinful. It seems to me they should be the ones to advise AiG to clarify their statement mentioned above because while they don’t have to discard sin in relation to theology they should discard it in regards to medical science. AiG does not make it clear that there are other causes involved in this seemingly harmless little explanation to kids. It’s really kind of a “sick” thing to explain illness and physical impairments in this manner.
SIDENOTE: Also, referencing the screenshot of the text I’m talking about, the reference is to “some.” “That’s why some people get really sick and why some have to be in wheelchairs or hooked up to machines.” The way this is worded leads one to believe that sin targets some people for disease and handicaps but not others? What do you take away from that? It really seems to say that sick people and the handicapped deserve what they get. Very poor wording and I’d say embarrassing. Considering that I’ve gotten slammed on my own site for poor wording, if AiG updates it to clarify I’m happy to update this post, I just think this is pretty awful to teach to kids. Someone should tell them, but they’re not going to listen to an atheist…