The Washington Post recently published an article about a creationist, Edgar Nernberg, who recently found a few fish fossils. The author apparently thought this fact—a creationist finding fossils—held some deep irony. The title of the piece was “Whoops! A creationist museum supporter stumbled upon a major fossil find.” Why whoops?

The patronization, finger-wagging, insult, self-satisfaction, and snark just escalate from there:

“No, it hasn’t changed my mind. We all have the same evidence, and it’s just a matter of how you interpret it,” Nernberg told the Calgary Sun. “There’s no dates stamped on these things.”

No sir, no dates. Just, you know, isotopic dating, basic geology, really shoddy stuff like that. To be fair, I’m not any more capable of figuring out when a particular fossil is from than Nernberg is. I’d be one sorry paleontologist, given the opportunity. I’ve never even found a fossil, so he’s got me there. But the science of dating fossils is not shaky—at least not on the order of tens of millions of years of error—so this fossil and the rocks around it really do give new earth creationism the boot.

The article goes on to begrudgingly note that most people wouldn’t have even known what they were looking at:

Ironically, Nernberg’s contributions at the Creation Science Museum are almost certainly what scientists have to thank for the find. He’s an amateur fossil collector, and he knew the fish were special as soon as he spotted them. . . .

“Most people would have overlooked these. When these were uncovered, Edgar right away recognized them,” Darla Zelenitsky, paleontologist and assistant professor of geoscience at the University of Calgary, told the Sun.

Again, why is any of this ironic? Because a creationist must, by definition, be ignorant of science? Because it’s a wonder creationists are even able to feed themselves?

The prejudice here is astounding. Let’s look at the facts, since evolutionists are apparently obsessed with them. “Basic geology” and “isotopic dating” are founded largely on non-evidential assumptions—very shoddy from a scientific standpoint. Don’t even get me started about isotopic dating: the original amount of radioactive material has to be assumed and the decay rate is assumed to be uniform. Both of these assumptions seriously affect your dates, yes, even to the tune of tens of millions of years. The author doesn’t know any of that though.

What’s hilarious here is that the author of this article admits that she knows nothing about paleontology or fossils. She just trusts the scientists without knowing anything about their claims. Like a religious fanatic unquestioningly following the dictates of an elitist and controlling clergy. Then she confidently asserts that this creationist, an intelligent amateur fossil enthusiast, is clearly ignorant of science. There’s an irony here all right. It’s just not what she thinks it is.