This Week in Creationism Ep 76: Shakeups, Conferences, and Misconceptions

In episode 67 of “This Week in Creationism”, I’m diving into some big news in the young-Earth creationist world, along with a few intriguing science stories that highlight some common creationist arguments and misconceptions.

You can watch the full video below or read the highlights in this blog post.

First up, there’s been a major shakeup at Answers in Genesis (AiG). Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham’s son-in-law and longtime CEO of AiG, has left the organization. This came as a shock to many, including myself. Bodie has been a key figure at AiG for years, essentially running the day-to-day operations while Ken Ham served more as the public face and figurehead.

What’s particularly interesting is how quietly this departure seems to have happened. There wasn’t much fanfare or explanation – just a brief announcement on the AiG website. Bodie has now started his own ministry called Biblical Authority Ministries. While he’s still writing blog posts and seems to be sticking to similar young-Earth creationist views, it’s a significant change for such a prominent figure to leave AiG.

This comes amidst other changes at AiG, including Martin Iles as Ken Ham’s eventual successor. It makes me wonder what other shifts we might see in the organization’s leadership and direction in the coming years.

Next, I discuss the recent Creation Research Society conference held at the Ark Encounter. This annual meeting brings together young-Earth creationist researchers and speakers. Looking at the conference schedule gave me some interesting insights into the current state of creationist “research” and the major players involved.

One thing that stood out was the relative absence of speakers from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). This could point to some tensions or divisions within the young-Earth creationist community. I also noticed a mix of familiar names and newer faces presenting research. Some talks focused on trying to explain biological diversity within a young-Earth framework, while others dealt with geology and attempts to reconcile the fossil record with flood geology.

Moving on to some specific creationist arguments, I want to highlight a few recent articles that showcase some common themes and misconceptions in young-Earth creationist thinking.

Answers in Genesis published a piece on variation and adaptation in guppies. What caught my eye was the language used to describe how organisms change over time. They talk about fish being “designed with an array of genes, alleles, and traits for rapid diversification” by a “master bioengineer.” This idea that God pre-loaded all the genetic information needed for future adaptations is a common creationist explanation for biological diversity.

But here’s the thing – this explanation raises so many questions. How exactly does this pre-loaded information get sorted into different species? How do you explain the loss of traits that aren’t used? And how is this fundamentally different from evolution by natural selection acting on genetic variation? These are the kinds of mechanistic details that I find creationists struggle to explain in a coherent way.

Another article from Creation Ministries International focused on the amazing migratory abilities of the golden plover. They use this as an example of incredible design that couldn’t have evolved naturally. While the plover’s abilities are indeed impressive, what the article fails to consider is the existence of many other plover species with different traits and behaviors.

This is a classic case of the “God of the gaps” argument – looking at a complex trait and saying “this must have been designed” without considering the broader context or potential evolutionary pathways. It’s also an example of how creationists often focus on individual “kinds” of animals without addressing how that diversity arose from the limited number of animals they believe were on Noah’s ark.

I also came across an interesting piece from ICR about “intelligent design flapping frequencies” in various flying creatures. They point to a correlation between body mass, wing area, and flapping frequency as evidence of design. But again – this kind of relationship is exactly what we’d expect to see from natural selection optimizing flight efficiency across different body sizes. It’s a great example of how creationists often interpret evidence for evolution as evidence of design.

Lastly, I want to touch on a persistent misconception that Ken Ham continues to promote. In a recent article, he suggests that the discovery of a simplified algae species contradicts evolutionary theory because evolution should always lead to increased complexity. This fundamentally misunderstands how evolution works. Natural selection doesn’t have a direction or goal – it simply favors traits that are advantageous in a given environment, whether that means becoming more complex or more simplified.