It certainly seems so. I mean, I’ve met him in person and he isn’t a dullard in the intelligence department… but then he writes this in response to Karl Giberson:
You see, when we ask, “Were you there?”, creationists are not claiming that we cannot determine the past unless we are eyewitnesses. Granted, we do point out that the further we go back in time, the less certainty we may have. Rather the point of “Were you there?” is to underscore the fact that we do have an Eyewitness account. This Eyewitness is God Himself who authored the Scriptures, which never came by the will of men (including the pre-scientific but nonetheless true history in Genesis). Unfortunately, this Creator (who never lies) testifies that the world did not come about by purely uniform, natural processes, a fact of the Text which Giberson chooses to ignore. He’s ignoring God’s testimony as irrelevant because modern scientists who’ve chained scientific inquiry to pure naturalism have concocted an all-natural Just-so story to replace the historical Creation account in Genesis.
The ‘Were you there’ is a stupid argument. Why? Because they are still assuming that unless the historical narrative of Genesis 1 matches up to modern Western ideas of history and other accounts, then it is wrong. Further, he is still assuming that Genesis 1 is about the physical creation. So to ask if someone was there is to dismiss the actual Scripture. What Tony and others are doing is to take their account and their understanding, nay, their necessity of having Scripture read like they and not ancient Hebrews wrote it, and applying it to Scripture.
So, Tony, were you there? Are you an ancient Hebrew writing the hymn, sitting in Babylon, during exile, keeping the identity of your people alive? Were you there, in God’s mind, as he inspired Scripture so that you directed him was to what to inspired, and to the original authors as to tell them, which they would not have understood whatsoever, what to say? Were you there, Tony? What? No? They how about give the ancient authors there due and try not to tell them that what they wrote doesn’t mean anything unless it meets the high quality of the Western white guy.
Now, we can actually examine the passage in context because we have other writings by other authors who were actually there, but that might actually prove Tony and others wrong…