BCSE : Main / Andy Mcintoshs Religious Opinions

Professor McIntosh's beliefs

Answers In Genesis has a long catalogue of publicly available audio webcasts from Andy McIntosh. These can be found here on Answers in Genesis's main web site. They consist of three lecturers in eleven parts.

Here are some notes made by one of our science PhDs.

The importance of creation

This recording, taken of McIntosh speaking in a Reformed Baptist church in the USA, makes it abundantly clear that he is a biblical literalist and 6 x 24hr-day Young Earth Creationist. He says that there was a real Garden of Eden not long ago and clearly believes in the Devil. He says Biblical genealogy shows that Adam's life overlapped with Methuselah, who overlapped with Shem, who overlapped with Abraham and so knowledge would have been tranmitted from Adam to Abraham over this short chain. No one doubts, he says, that Abraham lived about 2000 BC.

On science, he says that there are things which God did not reveal and so remained to be discovered by science. What God did reveal in the Bible, however, is true and any science contradicting it is wrong. His words are:

"But what we have revealed in the Bible, where it touches on astronomy, where it touches on science, where it touches on geology, like the flood and many other things which are recorded in the Bible, where it touches on science, we need to stand by it. Not all truth is possible to understand by science and not all science is true. That's an important point because if you've got a scientist with all - you can have so many letters after your name, I don't know how many letters he may have after his name - but if he says something which is totally different to what the Bible says, you know which one's true!"

Creation or Evolution?

Here he speculates on the source of the Sun's energy. He says that there is a problem with fusion - missing nutrinos. He suggests that a far better explanation is that the energy comes from gravitational collapse. This he says would mean that the Sun is only a few thousands of years old, not the billions calculated by astronomers.

He then declares that short-period comets are evidence of a young Solar System. Coming back to Earth, he says that Californian Redwoods suffer from no known desease and so, since none are dated by their rings to be older than 4-5000 years, they are evidence for a young earth. Likewise, population growth figures, extrapolated backwards, show that humans have only been around for a few thousand years.

He continues, talking about how fossil fuels could be recent. He points out that he comes from the department of Leeds University of which he is now professor, and says "...I'm not allowed to teach them myself on this point, I'm just reserved for the theory, but I do put my little two-pennyworth to my students when I talk to them about origin of fuels - I do say to them, 'look, we musn't ignore the catastrophic possibility for fuels, that they can be formed quickly, they don't need long periods of time. All you need is enough pressure and enough temperature and you can form carbonaceous material - that is creatures which have died - you can form oil and coal very very quickly indeed.'"

All considered, in view of the title, he says remarkably little about evolution.

The world by chance or design?

In this lecture, he discusses the evolution of flight. That it could have happened once, he finds incredible; that it happened three times he declares "scientific madness". He touches on "irreducible complexity" (without calling it that), mocking that you couldn't have "half a bat" etc. and similarly decrying evolution by saying that although you can selectively breed dogs, dogs don't turn into cats.

Turning to fossils, he says that some fossil animals were much larger than their modern counterparts. Before the Flood, butterflies for instance were much larger to suit a "much thicker or different kind of atmosphere " - which would also have allowed giant pterodactyls to fly. After the Flood, conditions would have changed to the very different ones we have today,

Just one quote:

At the end, summing up, he says, "The evidence fits very well with the Creationist understanding of the world around us."

I think all this goes some way towards undermining Truth in Science's more recent take on Intelligent Design.

In conclusion, here is Andy McIntosh talking to Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis:

KH "You're a scientist but you're a creationist too?"
AM "Very definitely."
KH "So you believe that God created in six days, just like the Bible says?"
AM "Definitely, no doubt about it."
KH "There was a global Flood?"
AM "Exactly."
KH "No death and bloodshed and disease before sin?"
AM "Absolutely."

You can't put it more clearly than that. The professor is a 6x24hr-day biblical literalist, diluvialist and Creationist.

Truth in Science's Intelligent Design advocacy is just a smokescreen - as we all knew, of course.

(Printable View of http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/AndyMcintoshsReligiousOpinions)