www.answersingenesis.org

Answers in Genesis #fundie #dunning-kruger answersingenesis.org

Neanderthals and Modern Humans Were Buried Together
Perhaps the strongest evidence that Neanderthals were fully human and part of our biblical “kind” is that at four sites people of Neanderthal morphology and people of modern human morphology were buried together. In all of life, few desires are stronger than the desire to be buried with one’s own people. Skhul Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, is considered to be a burial site of anatomically modern Homo sapiens individuals. Yet Skhul IV and Skhul IX fossil skulls are closer to the Neanderthal configuration than they are to modern humans.27 Qafzeh, Galilee, Israel, is also considered to be an anatomically modern burial site. However, Qafzeh skull 6 is clearly Neanderthal in its morphology.28 Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, is one of the classic Neanderthal burial sites. But the Tabun C2 mandible is more closely aligned with modern mandibles found elsewhere.29 The Krapina Rock Shelter, Croatia, is one of the most studied Neanderthal burial sites. At least 75 individuals are buried there. The remains are fragmentary, making diagnosis difficult. However, the addition of several newly identified fragments to the Krapina A skull (now known as Krapina 1) reveals it to be much more modern than was previously thought, indicating that it is intermediate in morphology between Neanderthals and modern humans.30

That Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans were buried together constitutes strong evidence that they lived together, worked together, intermarried, and were accepted as members of the same family, clan, and community. The false distinction made by evolutionists today was not made by the ancients. To call the Neanderthals “Cave Men” is to give a false picture of who they were and why caves were significant in their lives.

The human family is a unified family. “From one man He [God] made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth” (Acts 17:26).31

Ken Ham and Franklin Graham #fundie #wingnut #homophobia #transphobia answersingenesis.org

It’s being described as “the most comprehensive assault on Christianity in America ever written into law,” “a dangerous threat to our nation,” “the Left’s woke new heresy code,” and “something no American should stand for.” What is it? The so-called “Equality Act” that was recently introduced to Congress. But it’s for anything but “equality”—it’s for destroying freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in this nation, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
[…]
Here’s how Franklin Graham describes the possible effects of this legislation in an email.[…]

The Equality Act Will:

* Designate schools, churches, and healthcare organizations as “public accommodations.” With this, schools, churches, and hospitals could be forced to accept the government’s beliefs and mandates about sexual orientation and gender identity. That would be highly intrusive and incredibly far-reaching. It will threaten everyday speech where people can be fined or lose their jobs for using the wrong name or pronouns.
* Legislate that we allow boys in girls’ sports, boys in girls’ locker rooms, men in women’s shelters, and men in women’s prisons. It will force teachers and students to publicly pretend that a biological male is a female. Schools will be encouraged or mandated to instruct first, second, and third graders that they can choose to be a boy or a girl, or neither, or both, making biological sex (and science) a relic of the past.

Avery Foley and Troy Lacey #fundie answersingenesis.org

Grandmothers? What’s the Evolutionary Use?
In an evolutionary worldview, human grandmothers are a bit of a puzzle. In most animal species, females do not survive long after their childbearing years have ended. Human females, however, can and often do survive for decades after menopause, the hormonal change which concludes their childbearing years at around age 50. Studies such as the one mentioned below apply an evolutionary worldview in an attempt to explain what (or in this case, who) we see around us.

In this worldview, organisms are generally only helpful to the continued survival and evolution of the species if they can reproduce. Once an organism can no longer reproduce, it is merely taking up space and resources that could go towards either the reproducing or young members of the species. So why would evolution favor human grandmothers? Our life span should have evolved to be shorter, especially for women since, unlike men, there is a defined ending to their ability to reproduce. That is the evolutionary problem with grandmothers.

There Must Be an Evolutionary Explanation of Why Grandmothers Exist!
Defying evolutionary beliefs, grandparents have existed throughout recorded human history, and since we must have an evolutionary justification story for everything, the researchers of a new study have woven together an explanation with a slight twist.1 To be fair, this paper is looking specifically at how distance affected the “grandmother hypothesis,” which has been around at least since 2004. And that hypothesis was built upon “explaining old age by natural selection” in papers going back to at least 1966.2

In a nutshell, the “grandmother hypothesis” postulates that post-reproductive life spans are selected for in older women because grandmothers “gain inclusive fitness benefits by helping their daughters and grandchildren.”3 But in this new study, the authors looked at the distance between their mothers and their daughters to determine if there was a correlation. By looking over detailed church records from Quebec, Canada, in an age (1608–1799) where travel was much more difficult, they discovered slightly overall positive effects of the presence of the (grand)mother living in close proximity when her daughter was giving birth at a younger age and the number of offspring born, as well as lower chances of infant mortality.4 They also found that distance did affect the benefits, with grandmothers who lived over 50 km (31 miles) away providing severely decreased benefit to the mother or grandchildren, suggesting that geographic distance may constrain the ability of the mothers to help their daughters (and grandchildren), resulting in a decrease in fitness benefits with distance.5 But the authors admit that the evolutionary explanation is still elusive.

The question of why prolonged PRLS [post-reproductive life span] has evolved remains unanswered. Evolutionary pathways to prolonged PRLS have yet to be supported. Future research should apply quantitative genetic analyses to test evolutionary genetic hypotheses and assess the relative importance of PRLS hypotheses. The indirect fitness benefits accrued by grandmothers in our study support the proposition that the grandmother hypothesis can, in part, explain PRLS.6

In other words, from an evolutionary perspective, they cannot explain why women live long past their child-bearing years. Although the study mentioned above did find a positive correlation, it was slight and could just as readily be explained as a result of religion and community (French-speaking, Catholic, founder settler population initially). If evolutionary biologists were to be consistent with their evolutionary paradigm, it would seem that the expenditure of community resources on non-reproductive members would outweigh or at least even out the “babysitter benefits.”

Indeed, when one takes the evolutionary worldview to its logical conclusion, it becomes evident that euthanasia is the natural consequence. Euthanasia, typically defined as the intentional ending of the life of someone who is suffering, is increasingly being broadened to include those who are simply very elderly. In the evolutionary worldview that has increasingly permeated Western culture for over 150 years, this makes sense. Clear out the elderly so resources can be freed up for younger, healthier, and more productive persons.

Ken Ham & Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

If Humans Are Just Animals Then . . .

Well, it’s important to first note the inconsistency of most animal rights groups. These groups claim to be against animal abuse, but are these same people against the abuse of millions of children who are brutally murdered in their mother’s wombs through abortion?

It’s rather ironic that in PETA’s evolutionary worldview humans are just animals, yet PETA does not petition against the “animal cruelty” of killing unborn children. And what about a Save the Tapeworms Society or People for the Preservation of Fruit Flies?

If all life evolved, shouldn’t these groups be against killing these creatures too? Yet most animal rights groups are not trying to preserve pests like these. This highlights their inconsistency. And if they are evolutionists, then all life, animals and plants, are related in the one big supposed evolutionary tree of life. So what about rights for plants too?

Now some animal rights people claim they are Christians. If so, then they need to understand that God gave man dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26), including over the animals. This dominion does not mean we can deliberately abuse, neglect, or harm creation, but rather, we’re to use what God has made for our good and His glory. In Genesis 1:29 and 30, God told man to eat plants/fruits. But in Genesis 9:3 after the Flood, God said we could eat all things (plants and animals).

Animal rights groups really want animals to have dominion over man. Yet, ironically, most would claim that man is just an animal. So if they want equal rights for animals, what rights should humans have if they believe man is just an evolved animal?

For example if animals kill other animals, do animal rights groups think humans (if we’re just animals) should have equal rights to kill too? Why should we be held to some higher standard or different moral code from other animals?

If animals steal from other animals, do animal rights groups think humans (if we’re just evolved animals) should have equal rights to steal? What about incest, cannibalism, or infant abandonment? Why are these things wrong for humans but not wrong for “other” animals? If animal rights activists were consistent, they should argue that it is okay to steal from animals, kill them, and eat them—since this is what we regularly observe in sin-cursed animals anyway.

Where Do Rights Come From?

In an evolutionary worldview, what makes animal rights activists think that rights exist in the first place? Rights are an abstract concept that comes from a biblical worldview, which is denied by the evolutionary position. The evolutionary position, which comes out of naturalism and materialism, cannot account for the concept of rights, because they are not material. In other words, the evolutionary materialist must borrow the concept of rights from Christians to argue against the Christian position of man being superior and in dominion over animals.

If animals are no different from humans, then why aren’t ringworms making the argument for animal rights, instead of people? We don’t observe the organization of ringworms called the Ringworms for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or RETA. In the animal rights activists’ heart of hearts, they know man is above animals. What they don’t know is why. It is because man is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27).

Evolutionary Morality—Hopelessly Inconsistent

Those who start with an evolutionary view of mankind have no absolute basis for morality. Because they have no foundation, they are forced to construct a moral code that is “right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:25). This leads to all kinds of inconsistencies.

Evolutionists arbitrarily create or hold to a moral code for humans—which, in their view, includes not using anything that comes from or was even tested on animals—yet they believe we are just animals. So why should we be held to this arbitrary standard that no “other” animal is held to?

(...)

"Let Them Have Dominion”

Most animal rights groups start with an evolutionary view of mankind. They view us as the last to evolve (so far), as a blight on the earth, and the destroyers of pristine nature. Nature, they believe, is much better off without us, and we have no right to interfere with it. This is nature worship, which is a further fulfillment of the prophecy in Romans 1 in which the hearts of sinful man have traded worship of God for the worship of God’s creation.

But as people have noted for years, nature is “red in tooth and claw.”4 Nature is not some kind of perfect, pristine place. And why is this? Because mankind chose to sin against a holy God. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command, they brought death, suffering, and the Curse into creation (Genesis 2:17, 3:17).

Now all of creation groans, waiting for the coming day when Jesus will liberate it from the Curse (Romans 8:20–22; Revelation 22:3). Creation was never designed to live in disharmony. We, and the animals, were originally created to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30) and to live forever without any suffering or disease. But because sin changed all of that, we battle its effects every day.

But this doesn’t mean that humans are a blight or disease. Despite our sin, we are the only ones created in the very image of God, utterly unique from the rest of creation. We were granted dominion over the earth and it’s inhabitants (Genesis 1:26). This was part of our “very good” (Genesis 1:31), pre-Fall purpose and mission, and it stems out of our position as image bearers of the Creator.

Paul F. Taylor #fundie answersingenesis.org

A detailed criticism of Recolonization Theory has previously been published by McIntosh, Edmondson, and Taylor, and another by Holt.

The principal error of this view is that it starts from supposed scientific anomalies, such as the fossil record, rather than from Scripture. This has led to the proposals among some Recolonizers, but not all, that there must be gaps in the genealogies recorded in Genesis 5 and 11, even though there is no need for such gaps. Indeed the suggestion of gaps in these genealogies causes further doctrinal problems.

Even the views of those Recolonizers who do not expand the genealogies contain possible seeds of compromise. Because the Recolonizers accept the geologic column, and because the Middle East has a great deal of what is called Cretaceous rock, it follows that the Middle East would need to be submerged after the Flood, at the very time of the Tower of Babel events in Genesis 11. This has led some of the Recolonizers to speculate that the Ark actually landed in Africa, and therefore, that continent was the host to the events of Genesis 11 and 12. This would seem to be a very weak position exegetically and historically. Such exegetical weaknesses led Professor Andy McIntosh and his colleagues to comment, “Their science is driving their interpretation of Scripture, and not the other way round.”

Paul F. Taylor #fundie answersingenesis.org

An issue often used in an attempt to beat biblical creationists over the head is the worldwide distribution of animals. Such a distribution, say critics, proves that there could never have been a global Flood or an Ark. If the Ark landed somewhere in the Middle East, then all the animals would have disembarked at that point, including animals that we do not find in the Middle East today, or in the fossil record in that area. How did kangaroos get to Australia, or kiwis to New Zealand? How did polar bears get to North America and penguins to Antarctica?

Skeptics often claim, “The Bible is not a science textbook.” This, of course, is true—because science textbooks change every year, whereas the Bible is the unchanging Word of God—the God who cannot lie. Nevertheless, the Bible can be relied upon when it touches on every scientific issue, including ecology. It is the Bible that gives us the big picture. Within this big picture, we can build scientific models that help us explain how past events may have come about. Such models should be held to lightly, but the Scripture to which they refer is inerrant. That is to say future research may cast doubt on an actual model, without casting doubt on Scripture.

With this in mind, the question needs to be asked, “Is there a Bible-based model that we can use to help explain how animals might have migrated from where the Ark landed to where they live today?” The answer is yes.

The Hard Facts

A biblical model of animal migration obviously must start with the Bible. From Genesis we can glean the following pertinent facts:

“And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive” (Genesis 6:19–20). The Bible is clear that representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals and birds were present on the Ark. A technical term used by some creation scientists for these kinds is baramin—derived from the Hebrew words for created kind. Within these baramins is all the information necessary to produce all current species. For example, it is unlikely that the Ark contained two lions and two tigers. It is more likely that it contained two feline animals, from which lions, tigers, and other cat-like creatures have developed.
Another lesson from Genesis 6:20 is that the animals came to Noah. He did not have to go and catch them. Therefore, this preservation of the world’s fauna was divinely controlled. It was God’s intention that the fauna be preserved. The animals’ recolonization of the land masses was therefore determined by God, and not left to chance.
“Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). The Bible is clear that the Ark landed in the region of Ararat, but much debate has ensued over whether this is the same region as the locality of the present-day mountain known as Ararat. This issue is of importance, as we shall see. The Bible uses the plural “mountains.” It is unlikely that the Ark rested on a point on the top of a mountain, in the manner often illustrated in children’s picture books. Rather, the landing would have been among the mountainous areas of eastern Turkey, where present-day Mount Ararat is located, and western Iran, where the range extends.
It was God’s will that the earth be recolonized. “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark” (Genesis 8:15–19). The abundance and multiplication of the animals was also God’s will.

The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.

The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture.

The model uses the multiplication of dogs as an example of how animals could have quickly repopulated the earth. Two dogs came off Noah’s Ark and began breeding more dogs. Within a relatively short time period, there would be an incredible number of dogs of all sorts of different shapes and sizes.

These dogs then began to spread out from the Ararat region to all parts of the globe.
The dog kind diversifying

As these dogs spread around the world, variations within the dog kind led to many of the varieties we find today. But it is important to note that they are still dogs. This multiplication of variations within a kind is the same with the many other kinds of animals.

One final comment must be made in this section. As I have used the word recolonization several times, I must emphasize that I am not referring to the so-called Recolonization Theory. This theory will be discussed later.

Modern Recolonizations

One accusation thrown at biblical creationists is that kangaroos could not have hopped to Australia, because there are no fossils of kangaroos on the way. But the expectation of such fossils is a presuppositional error. Such an expectation is predicated on the assumption that fossils form gradually and inevitably from animal populations. In fact, fossilization is by no means inevitable. It usually requires sudden, rapid burial. Otherwise the bones would decompose before permineralization. One ought likewise to ask why it is that, despite the fact that millions of bison used to roam the prairies of North America, hardly any bison fossils are found there. Similarly, lion fossils are not found in Israel even though we know that lions once lived there.

Comparisons can be made with more modern recolonizations. For example, the Encyclopædia Britannica has the following to say about Surtsey Island and Krakatoa and the multiplication of species.

Six months after the eruption of a volcano on the island of Surtsey off the coast of Iceland in 1963, the island had been colonized by a few bacteria, molds, insects, and birds. Within about a year of the eruption of a volcano on the island of Krakatoa in the tropical Pacific in 1883, a few grass species, insects, and vertebrates had taken hold. On both Surtsey and Krakatoa, only a few decades had elapsed before hundreds of species reached the islands. Not all species are able to take hold and become permanently established, but eventually the island communities stabilize into a dynamic equilibrium.1

There is little secret, therefore, how nonflying animals may have travelled to the outer parts of the world after the Flood. Many of them could have floated on vast floating logs, left-overs from the massive pre-Flood forests that were ripped up during the Flood and likely remained afloat for many decades on the world’s oceans, transported by world currents. Others could later have been taken by people. Savolainen et al., have suggested, for example, that all Australian dingoes are descended from a single female domesticated dog from Southeast Asia.2 A third explanation of possible later migration is that animals could have crossed land bridges. This is, after all, how it is supposed by evolutionists that many animals and people migrated from Asia to the Americas—over a land bridge at the Bering Straits. For such land bridges to have existed, we may need to assume that sea levels were lower in the post-Flood period—an assumption based on a biblical model of the Ice Age.

The rare conditions required to form an Ice Age may have been triggered by the Flood.

As Michael Oard, a retired meteorologist and Ice Age researcher, has suggested in chapter 16, an Ice Age may have followed closely after the Flood. In his detailed analysis, Oard proposed a mechanism of how the rare conditions required to form an Ice Age may have been triggered by the Flood, and shows how this explains the field evidence for an Ice Age.3

Severe climatic changes could have been the catalyst that encouraged certain species to migrate in certain directions. These severe changes could also have accounted for some of the many extinctions that occurred. Additionally, Oard’s studies provide a model for how land bridges could have developed.

Oard has pointed out that certain observed features from the Ice Age cause problems for the evolutionist, not the creationist. Thus, a creationist explanation of the Ice Age better explains the facts. An example of such an issue is that of disharmonious associations of fossils—fossils of creatures normally associated with different conditions (such as creatures with a preference for hot and cold climates) being found in close proximity.

One of the more puzzling problems for uniformitarian theories of the ice age is disharmonious associations of fossils, in which species from different climatic regimes are juxtaposed. For example, a hippopotamus fossil found together with a reindeer fossil.

Oard suggests that even with present topography, a number of significant land bridges would have existed to facilitate migrations if the sea level were only 180 ft (55 m) below current levels. However, there is even evidence that the land in some places where land bridges would be necessary could have been higher still. Thus, land bridges facilitated by the Ice Age constitute a serious model to explain how some migrations could have been possible.

Some still remain skeptical about the idea of land bridges all the way to Australia. Nevertheless, by a combination of methods that we see today, including land bridges, there are rational explanations as to how animals may have reached the far corners of the world. Of course, we were not there at the time to witness how this migration may have happened, but those adhering to a biblical worldview can be certain that animals obviously did get to far places, and that there are rational ways in which it could have happened.

We should therefore have no problem accepting the Bible as true. Creationist scientific models of animal migration are equally as valid as evolutionary models, if not more so. The reason such models are rejected is that they do not fit in with the orthodox, secular evolutionary worldview.

It is not a problem for us to rationalize why certain animals do not appear in certain parts of the world. Why, for example, does Australia have such an unusual fauna, including so many marsupials? Marsupials are, of course, known elsewhere in the world. For example, opossums are found in North and South America, and fossilized marsupials have been found elsewhere. But in many places, climatic changes and other factors could lead to their extinction.

The lack of great marsupials in other continents need be no more of a problem than the lack of dinosaurs. As with many species today, they just died out—a reminder of a sin-cursed world. One proposed theory is that marsupials—because they bore their young in pouches—were able to travel farther and faster than mammals that had to stop to care for their young. They were able to establish themselves in far-flung Australia before competitors reached the continent.

Similar statements could be made about the many unusual bird species in New Zealand, on islands from which mammals were absent until the arrival of European settlers.
Recolonization Theory

The most logical interpretation of the biblical record of the Flood and its aftermath would seem to suggest that the animals disembarked and then recolonized the planet. Comparisons with modern migrations and incidents such as Surtsey have suggested that this recolonization need not have taken long. A plain reading of Scripture suggests that the Ark landed in the mountains of Ararat, most likely in the region of modern Turkey and Central Asia. It is also our contention that the significant quantity of death represented by the fossil record is best understood by reference to the Genesis Flood (i.e., the majority of fossils formed as a result of the Flood).

More recently, a theory has developed among certain creationists in the UK and Europe which suggests that the fossil record is actually a record not of catastrophe but of processes occurring during recolonization. This theory is called the Recolonization Theory.5

Proponents of this theory suggest that the Flood completely obliterated the earth’s previous crust so that none of the present fossils were caused by it. To accommodate fossilization processes, Recolonization Theory suggests that the age of the earth be stretched by a few thousand years. Some advocates of this view suggest an age of about 8,000 years for the earth, while others suggest figures as high as 20,000 years.

A detailed criticism of Recolonization Theory has previously been published by McIntosh, Edmondson, and Taylor6, and another by Holt7.

The principal error of this view is that it starts from supposed scientific anomalies, such as the fossil record, rather than from Scripture. This has led to the proposals among some Recolonizers, but not all, that there must be gaps in the genealogies recorded in Genesis 5 and 11, even though there is no need for such gaps. Indeed the suggestion of gaps in these genealogies causes further doctrinal problems.8

Even the views of those Recolonizers who do not expand the genealogies contain possible seeds of compromise. Because the Recolonizers accept the geologic column, and because the Middle East has a great deal of what is called Cretaceous rock, it follows that the Middle East would need to be submerged after the Flood, at the very time of the Tower of Babel events in Genesis 11. This has led some of the Recolonizers to speculate that the Ark actually landed in Africa, and therefore, that continent was the host to the events of Genesis 11 and 12. This would seem to be a very weak position exegetically and historically. Such exegetical weaknesses led Professor Andy McIntosh and his colleagues to comment, “Their science is driving their interpretation of Scripture, and not the other way round.”

Conclusions

We must not be downhearted by critics and their frequent accusations against the Bible. We must not be surprised that so many people will believe all sorts of strange things, whatever the logic.

Starting from our presupposition that the Bible’s account is true, we have seen that scientific models can be developed to explain the post-Flood migration of animals. These models correspond to observed data and are consistent with the Bible’s account. It is notable that opponents of biblical creationism use similar models in their evolutionary explanations of animal migrations. While a model may eventually be superseded, it is important to note that such biblically consistent models exist. In any event, we have confidence in the scriptural account, finding it to be accurate and authoritative.10 The fact of animal migration around the world is illustrative of the goodness and graciousness of God, who provided above and beyond our needs.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Towards the end of our time together, I asked Bill to explain why he wore clothes. Again I wanted to show he had no moral basis for his worldview, but it was just subjective opinion. I then used Genesis’ account of the origin of clothing to explain the gospel to Bill. God gave Adam and Eve clothes because of sin. The first blood sacrifice was a covering for our sin, a picture of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Unknown author #fundie answersingenesis.org

Many people believe dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and died before humans were alive. But when we read the Bible, we find that isn’t true. GENESIS 1 tells us that God created all land animals on Day Six of Creation (the same day He created Adam and Eve). Dinosaurs are land animals, so they were created on the same day as Adam and Eve, only six thousand years ago!

Unknown author #fundie answersingenesis.org

The argument, “Only the uneducated reject evolution,” is a logical fallacy on many fronts. It’s an ad hominem fallacy because it attacks the creationist rather than challenging the creationist’s view. It’s a faulty appeal to authority because it appeals to particular experts without acknowledging that many experts dispute the claim of evolution. It’s a “no true Scotsman” fallacy because even though there are many educated creationists, they are reclassified as uneducated since supposedly no truly educated person would reject evolution.

Those who believe that only the uneducated reject evolution perhaps do not realize that evolution, far from fact, does not even qualify as a theory. Evolution is a belief system about the past. Creationists also have a belief system about the past, but it is based on the historical account of the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16).

The Apostle Paul was a highly educated man who believed the Scriptures (Acts 22:3; Philippians 3:4–11). When Paul was on trial for his faith and testifying before King Agrippa, the governor Porcius Festus exclaimed, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind” (Acts 26:24). Festus could not attack Paul’s credentials or testimony, but he suggested Paul’s extensive education had driven him to insanity. Paul’s gracious response appeals to the truth and rationality of his faith: “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words” (verse 25).

Paul had just explained his testimony how “according to the strictest party of our religion I lived a Pharisee” (verse 5) and how he had fiercely persecuted the first followers of Christ (verses 9–11) until his dramatic encounter with Jesus Himself (verses 12–18). He went from persecuting to proving Christ (9:20–22). Jesus appointed Paul as His witness (26:16) “to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (verse 18).

Paul had lived faithfully to Christ’s commission, calling both Jews and Gentiles to “repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance. For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles” (verses 20–23).

So Paul not only had a personal testimony, but he also had the support of specific prophecies made hundreds of years before Jesus was born, which Christ perfectly fulfilled. 2 Let’s look at a few of these prophecies about the Messiah:

Paul pointedly asked, “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe” (Acts 26:27). King Agrippa was apparently familiar with the Scriptures (verses 2–3). He also must have heard reports of Christ’s life, death, and Resurrection, since there were more than 500 eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–3; 1 Corinthians 15:6). Paul asserted, “For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner” (Acts 26:26).

So King Agrippa was faced with a true and rational testimony of an educated man, a clear explanation of the gospel, the verification of eyewitnesses, and the fulfillment of prophecies. Sadly, King Agrippa put off personally turning to the truth: “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” (verse 28). Paul gave further evidence of Christianity in his response—the evidence that he and many others were willing to give up everything, even their own lives, for the sake of the gospel: “And Paul said, ‘Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains’” (verse 29).

People today have as much evidence as King Agrippa had and even more because we have the completed Scripture with the addition of the New Testament to the Old Testament. Beyond these evidences, we have what AiG calls the ultimate proof of creation in that naturalism/materialism cannot provide any basis for laws of logic, absolute morality, and the uniformity of nature, yet the Bible gives us the basis for these. As Paul wrote in Romans 1:18–32, those who suppress the truth about the Creator are fools, no matter how educated they are. On the other hand, those who have repented and trusted Christ have nothing to boast about except in the Lord, who by the message of the Cross saves sinners, no matter how uneducated.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

I believe the message of the AiG ministry has been very “prophetic.” Even when I began teaching on creation vs. evolution back in 1975, I was already asserting that atheistic evolution and morality were connected and that, over time, immorality would grow as people rejected God’s Word and accepted evolution.

I taught that the more people believed that life arose by natural processes, the more they would also believe that life was ultimately meaningless and purposeless—and morality could be whatever a person determined. Or, as Judges 21:25 states, when there was no king (or absolute authority) in the land, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” The late Dr. Henry Morris (considered the father of the modern biblical creation movement) had also been writing about this connection between evolution and morality in most of his early books.

Over the decades, evolutionists have often mocked me for tying evolution to morality. They claim that evolution has to do with “science,” not morality. But notice that as generations have been indoctrinated into believing naturalistic evolution, Christian morality has declined. Armed with so-called “science,” secularists have become bolder in opposing Christian morality.

In our Western world, we are seeing more and more people (like Bill Nye “the Science Guy”) who boldly claim that evolution is “science” and are using it to promote an anti-Christian worldview. More than ever, secular activists are vehemently opposing Christian morality, such as marriage being between one man and one woman and abortion being murder. And we are seeing very amoral and immoral behavior growing across the culture, especially, it seems, among the millennial generation. While we do not argue that evolution directly causes immorality, people can use Darwinian thinking to justify their behavior.

Now, it’s a challenge to read Charles Darwin’s books like On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. His writing can be very convoluted and difficult to follow. But what is clear is that Darwin believed humans are not special as the Bible states (i.e., made in God’s image), but just animals. As a result, he declared that morality was a result of evolution, shaping man into a highly social species through the process of natural selection. In The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote, “Nevertheless, the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.”

My point is that there has always been a connection between evolution and morality. Over the years, I’ve heard many evolutionists (like Bill Nye) and even some Christians claim that evolution is all about “science.” They vigorously rejected my insistence that evolution involved a worldview that helps build a relative/subjective morality. That’s why many people were shocked (though I wasn’t at all) when Bill Nye released his new series on Netflix that pushes shocking immorality and is sometimes anti-Christian.

Kids and adults enjoyed Nye’s TV series years ago where he did lots of fun things to teach science. Even if you watched his series back then, you would have noticed how he promoted evolutionary ideas in biology and geology. But he did it in such a way that most children would not have really noticed—and many parents probably didn’t see those pro-evolution sections. But kids were subtly indoctrinated. Even before his famous “Science Guy” program, Bill Nye had his television debut when he performed a comedy routine. It included a number of sexual innuendos.

For the many of you who saw my 2014 debate with Bill Nye (available uncut online or as a DVD), you will remember how I emphasized that the creation vs. evolution issue was actually a clash of two worldviews. Nye rejected this, of course, claiming I was the one who was talking about religion, but he was all about “science.”

In that debate I revealed the connection between naturalistic evolutionary beliefs and morality. Nye totally rejected this view. But people are now starting to see that what I stated in the debate is now being played out before their very eyes.

A recent article in the Christian Post reported (please excuse the crudeness):

On his Netflix show “Bill Nye Saves the World” on Sunday, the man famous for his 1990s series “Bill Nye the Science Guy” cheerily featured “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” star Rachel Bloom performing a lewd number called “My Sex Junk” and a video called “Ice Cream Sexuality,” a clear derision of Christian sexual ethics.

Nye’s new show occasionally references science and scientific language with the purpose of promoting left-wing causes.
Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, told the Christian Post, "These sad videos prove that atheistic Darwinians are so committed to blind faith that they very well may be invincibly ignorant.”

But really, this is what the belief in naturalistic evolution has always been about! I’m sure many of you have heard of the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. He was an English novelist and grandson of the famous contemporary of Darwin, Thomas Huxley. Thomas Huxley was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” who, as an aggressive secular humanist, heavily promoted Darwin’s evolutionary ideas. He clearly saw Darwin’s naturalistic evolution as a justification for his secular humanist worldview.

Encyclopedia Britannica states the following about Brave New World: “The novel presents a nightmarish vision of a future society in which psychological conditioning forms the basis for a scientifically determined and immutable caste system that, in turn, obliterates the individual and grants all control to the World State.”

In 1937, Aldous Huxley made this statement in his book Ends and Means:

For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.

We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world.

There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever. We’ve often said that this worldview struggle is ultimately one that started in the Garden of Eden over 6,000 years ago. It’s a battle between God’s Word and man’s word—a battle between two worldview religions. Answers in Genesis has been involved in this struggle for 23 years. It’s the battle our Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are engaged in.

And the only way to ultimately win this struggle is for people to be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb: “knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Peter 1:18–19).

This is why the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter exist. As we answer questions that will point people to the truth of God’s Word, we also clearly present them with the gospel. We’ve never hidden the fact that evangelism is our ultimate purpose—which is why we receive so much opposition from secularists. At the Creation Museum we present the saving gospel in different ways. That includes the stunning movie The Last Adam and the powerful new exhibit Christ, Cross, Consummation. We also make evangelistic tracts available free to our guests.

At the Ark Encounter, the gospel is featured in a number of ways including through the new movie As in the Days of Noah. The gospel is also powerfully shown in the massive exhibit Why the Bible Is True, with a graphic-novel approach. In that exhibit, we walk guests through the various “doors” of Scripture and then challenge visitors to go through the most important “door,” the Lord Jesus Christ.

We have just created a new gospel-witnessing tract on the “doors” of Scripture. It has been produced in conjunction with our new Ark exhibit, and we freely offer it to each guest who wants one at the Ark Encounter. I’m very excited about this new resource. It’s one more evangelistic tool to share the gospel at the Ark Encounter. And now you can order this “Doors of the Bible” tract from our online store and share it with someone who needs to hear the gospel.

I ask that you pray for the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum outreaches. Everything we do at Answers in Genesis is for the ultimate purpose of sharing the life-changing message of the gospel. And it is through your prayers and support that you are enabling AiG to continue all its many vital outreaches—to impact millions of souls for the kingdom of Christ while countering anti-Christian influences, like Bill Nye.

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (GENESIS 1:27)

According to evolution, man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Because evolutionists believe this happened they expect to find “missing links” between people and our supposed ape-like ancestors. We know from our Bible verse that people were specially made by God in His own image. We did not evolve from anything, so the “missing links” evolutionists are looking for will always be, well, missing!

One fossil that is often called a “missing link” is a fossil skeleton known as “Lucy.” Many evolutionists believe that Lucy is a link between ape-like creatures and people. Lucy’s skeleton is missing a lot of her bones. Originally she had 207 bones, but 160 of these are missing including most of her hands, feet, and skull.

Far away from where Lucy was discovered are a set of fossilized footprints that look just like the footprints you would make if you walked along the beach. Evolutionists believe that these footprints are too old to be human footprints, even though they look exactly the same as human footprints, so they decided that something like Lucy must have made them.

These footprints couldn’t have been made by Lucy, though, because she didn’t walk upright like people do. Other fossils of the same species as Lucy have been found and they have curved toes and fingers just like modern apes do! They also have ape wrists and ape shoulders, which means that Lucy and her family did not walk upright. Instead, like other apes, they lived in trees and walked on their knuckles.

Rather than a missing link in the evolutionary chain, Lucy is just an extinct ape! We can trust the Bible when it says that all people were created in God’s image!

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Secularist Media War Against the Ark Continues

Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream media, on blogs, and on well-known secularist group websites have attempted to spread propaganda to brainwash the public into thinking our Ark Encounter attraction is a dismal failure. Sadly, they are influencing business investors and others in such a negative way that they may prevent Grant County, Kentucky, from achieving the economic recovery that its officials and residents have been seeking.

In one sense, such negative, misleading, and outright false reporting doesn’t worry me. As Christians, we know we will receive opposition like this—and after 40 years in Bible-upholding ministry, I have become used to such antics by those who oppose us. Nowadays, it seems very few reporters in the secular media actually want to report facts regarding what they cover as news. When it comes to reporting on theologically conservative Christians like those of us at AiG, whose ideology they strongly oppose, many writers have an agenda to undermine Christianity as they file their stories.

I’ve found that not only do these kinds of reporters generally do very poor or lazy research, they will actually make things up for their agenda purposes. They often just quote others, who themselves have quoted yet others, who have quoted even yet others. Urban legends have now been created around our life-size Noah’s Ark, mixing misleading and untrue statements gathered from a variety of sources, often not using primary sources but hearsay.

A Recent Case in Point

Let me give you a recent example. Reporter Linda Blackford wrote a recent front-page article on the Ark Encounter for the secular newspaper the Lexington Herald Leader of Kentucky (the state’s second largest paper). Her article was titled “Town Expected Flood of Business after Noah’s Ark Opened. So Far, It’s a Trickle.”1

After reading that headline and then her article, I was convinced that she (and probably her editor) had an agenda even before she began her research and writing. She was determined to convince readers that the Ark Encounter wasn’t successful and that it hadn’t had much of a positive economic impact or created jobs in Grant County. As she ignored overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the reporter misquoted the few people she did interview and deliberately wrote an article that hid the whole truth about the tremendous economic impact that the Ark Encounter has had on all of Northern Kentucky. Her motivation? Well, because her newspaper has been known for antagonism toward anything Christian, and AiG has experienced this agenda from the paper over the years, what’s occurred here is yet another example of its anti-Christian bias.

[...]

Intolerant Atheists

The Herald-Leader isn’t the only secular media outlet spreading such maligning anti-AiG propaganda. Many secular bloggers and organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have produced videos and/or printed articles filled with misinformation and deliberate falsehoods in their attempt to hide the truth about the success of the Ark.

Many articles, for example, have actually stated that the city of Williamstown, where the Ark is located, is liable for the $62 million dollar bond offering that was part of the funding for the Ark. That’s simply a lie. Answers in Genesis is totally liable for that bond offering, which states:

The Series 2013 Bonds shall not be general obligations of the Issuer but special and limited obligations payable solely from the amounts payable under the loan agreement and from funds and property pledged pursuant to the indenture. The Series 2013 Bonds and the interest payable thereon do not now and shall never constitute indebtedness of the Issuer or the Commonwealth of Kentucky within the meaning of the Constitution or the Statutes of the Commonwealth, and neither the Issuer, the Commonwealth of Kentucky nor any political subdivision thereof shall be liable for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Series 2013 Bonds or for the performance of any pledge, mortgage, obligation or agreement created by or arising under the indenture or the Series 2013 Bonds from any property other than the trust estate. Neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Issuer, the Commonwealth of Kentucky or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Series 2013 Bonds.3

Yes, the bonds were issued through the city, but the city is not responsible for one cent of this offering. Some articles even say the bond offering is part of the TIF—which is simply ridiculous! The amount of misinformation and outright lies about the Ark project is staggering.

Why so many lies and misinformation? Simply because we are in a spiritual battle, and the intolerant secularists are so upset with such world-class attraction like the Ark (and Creation Museum) that publicly proclaim a Christian message. They will resort to whatever tactics they deem necessary to try to malign the attractions.

Of course, negative reporting and commentary result in more advertising for our facilities! As I witness all this opposition and see such opposition backfiring, I am reminded again of what Joseph declared and how it applies to us today:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50:20)

Answers in Genesis #fundie answersingenesis.org

Scientists first began studying the world around them because they wanted to understand and praise its Creator. Because God shows some of His character through creation, they tried to learn more about Him by studying His creation.

Because they viewed the world through biblical glasses, many creationists made great discoveries and improvements in many different sciences.

Steve Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Sufficiency of Scripture for Helping People in Need

Author Steve Ham explores the consistency between the positions of biblical creation and biblical counseling concerning the authority of God’s Word and its sufficiency in the lives of all believers.

Recently I had the opportunity to read and review the book Counseling the Hard Cases.1 This book places the biblical counseling movement on display as it reports the process and outcomes of real-life counseling cases. As a biblical creationist, I was continually encouraged to find the counselors’ dedication to the sufficiency of Scripture for helping real people with real problems. While preparing a review of this book as a graduate student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, I became even more aware of the consistency between the positions of biblical creation and biblical counseling concerning the authority of God’s Word and its sufficiency in the lives of all believers.

Biblical Authority and Medical Science

I noticed the strong correlations between biblical creationists and biblical counselors in the first chapter of Counseling the Hard Cases. Both positions face accusations revolving around the nature of authority and science. For example, many “Christian counselors” are convinced that the use of such treatments as hypnosis or psychotropic drugs are based on strong scientific research and analysis.2 Persuaded that this research comes from an authoritative source, they then integrate it into their counseling methodology.

Like most “Christian counselors,” trained biblical counselors typically take great care to refer counselees to doctors for necessary medical diagnosis and treatment of their physical ailments. However, for spiritual issues the biblical counselor seeks to ensure that Scripture is seen as the supreme authority and sufficient to help all believers deal with trials (suffering) or sin in their lives. Biblical counselors also should acquaint themselves with the research related to such things as medication, noting which recommendations are based upon repeatable, testable observations and which are based on assumptions influenced by a secular worldview. This is also why biblical counselors prefer to work in partnership with physicians who are Bible-believing Christians. In recognition of secular worldview influences in the medical community, many biblical counselors have armed counselees with questions to ask their practitioners who prescribe medications such as anti-depressants. Especially if a diagnosis is as broad as the term “chemical imbalance,” biblical counselors will encourage questions such as the following:

• What tests were performed to prove that the problem exists?
• What proof do you have that the problem you discovered is not merely a symptom of a deeper problem?
• What proof do you have that the medication you are prescribing truly corrects the problem?

Properly Diagnosing the Problem and Its Remedy

In today’s world it seems nearly every social or relational problem known to man is categorized by a descriptively named disorder and often treated by some psychotropic drug. In many cases, counselors and others re-label sinful responses to situations in a way that removes personal responsibility. For example, lashing out at your children in anger is now known as Intermittent Explosive Disorder, and “it’s not your fault” that you act the way you do. If your son consistently disobeys your authority as his parent, he will likely be diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. These disorders are often depicted as villains maliciously attacking their victims as if they were a force unto themselves. When seen in this light, these problems become the cause of debilitation for many people who find themselves lost in a hopeless dependence on secular psychological techniques and prescription medication.

This wrong perception of relational problems that are ultimately rooted in sinful thoughts and behaviors has sadly become commonplace even in the church. Many counseling practitioners have attempted to make a compatible partnership between Christian doctrine and worldly philosophies in the diagnosis and treatment of the human soul.[

Scripture Is Sufficient to Help with the Problems of Life

To address this issue, Counseling the Hard Cases reports on real-life case studies from eleven experienced biblical counselors. Compiled by editors Stuart Scott and Heath Lambert, the introduction clearly sets forth the theme for this collection of biblical counseling case studies.4 In the development of the modern biblical counseling movement over the last fifty years, persuasive evidence shows that “Scripture is comprehensively sufficient to do ministry with people experiencing profound difficulties in their lives” (p. 23).

While the sufficiency of Scripture in counseling is the basic thesis of the book, in each of the hard cases the editors have been careful to display this concept practically in the lives of real people. Even for those who are not skeptical about biblical counseling, the results of these hard cases were amazing and gave great cause for rejoicing in the redeeming grace found in the Cross of Christ.

The biblical counseling movement has been criticized by those who are skeptical of the sufficiency of Scripture for counseling. Secular psychology understandably views the Bible as irrelevant, but many “Christian counselors” acknowledge the Bible’s relevance yet deny its sufficiency in the way that they practically advise their counselees. We expect people with a purely naturalistic view of the human condition to dismiss biblical wisdom in counseling, and therefore this book primarily answers the criticisms of “Christian counseling.”

One of the primary criticisms of biblical counselors is that they use the Bible to somehow replace science and therefore ignore the consensus of secular research for dealing with psychological problems. But the proof of scriptural sufficiency for biblical counseling is convincingly “in the pudding.”5 This book helps put to rest the misconception that biblical counselors ignore science as the reader observes them partnering with trained physicians to treat real and identifiable physical problems. It is in the power of the Holy Spirit and the gospel of Christ, through the voice of the counselor, that the application of biblical truth guides a responsive counselee to healing and sanctification.

When discussing counseling methods, a key question to ask is this: does the authority to diagnose the many human dysfunctional behaviors come from man’s word or God’s Word? Heath Lambert is quick to point out that the counseling debate is profoundly centered in presuppositions. He refers to Jay Adams, who stated that his presupposition in counseling methodology is “the inerrant Bible as the standard of all faith and practice” (p. 8). It is clear that each of the contributing authors commences his or her counseling approach with the same presupposition as Adams. To some, this presupposition may seem like an intellectual debate about methodologies. But the ten extraordinary cases presented in the book consistently confirm the truth of this idea in real-life situations as the hope of Christ transforms lives and frees people from bondage to sinful thoughts and behaviors. So, a presuppositional approach to Scripture is not simply a debate about truth; it is also entirely practical.

Can the Bible Help with the Hard Cases?

Like biblical creationists, biblical counselors have never claimed that the Bible is a science textbook.

Other accusations against the biblical counseling movement have come from a misinterpretation of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. Critics claim that the Bible is not a science textbook, and therefore it is ill-equipped to help with so-called psychological disorders. The answers to such claims are well stated in this book.

First, secular psychology fails to prove that many of the human problems “classified as mental illnesses” are related to any real “disease or illness at all” (p. 8). This ultimately means that the “science” of secular psychology has its own problems with regard to the definition of observational (i.e., testable, repeatable) science, by which a hypothesis is repeatedly tested and either proven or denied. As a prime example, no one really knows how certain neurotransmitters relate to conditions like depression and anxiety. Yet various medications are prescribed to correct imbalances that have not been accurately defined.

Second, critics from the Christian counseling movement suggest that biblical counselors are using the Bible in place of “science” or as a “science” textbook. But, like biblical creationists, biblical counselors have never claimed that the Bible is a science textbook. Within all the different genres that Scripture takes, the biblical counselor starts with a commitment to the authority of God’s Word. So, instead of viewing human problems in the light of a secular label such as a phobia or disorder, biblical counselors present human problems as Scripture does—in terms of the problem of human sin and suffering and the answer in the gospel.

Real Help and Change in Transformed Living

Reading through each of the hard cases, one soon comes to the realization that these scriptural truths are not just words on a page. Instead, the case studies show there truly is transformational power in the living Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). The same God who saves us from everlasting destruction also brings us into a life that exemplifies His grace. Even more enlightening is the fact that many of the people whose stories are told in this book found genuine healing after having first been disillusioned by the debilitating effects of anti-depressives, hypnosis, attempts to relive a better childhood, and various other secular treatments.

The list of documented cases contains “disorders” that many pastors have dispatched in the “too-hard” basket. They include an extreme example of sexual abuse, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, and more. A purely theoretical book cannot touch the impact of this book in retelling what these real-life experiences reveal about the sufficiency of Scripture in the counseling process.

One final thing that should be mentioned in respect to these cases is the book’s consistent theme highlighting the believer’s satisfaction in Christ, confidence in the gospel, the power of the Holy Spirit, a commitment for prayerful reading and application of Scripture, and the supportive care of the local church community. The counseling process is shown to engage not only one counselor but God working through His Word and the community of believers in the heart and mind of the counselee.

The Powerful Word of God

I heartily recommend this book to pastors and any believer needing to witness the powerful nature of the Word of God to gain confidence and steadfastness in the faith—and anyone with a desire to help others:

I myself am satisfied about you my brothers that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another. (Romans 15:14, ESV)

Footnotes

1. Stuart W. Scott and Heath Lambert, eds. Counseling the Hard Cases. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2012.
2. “Christian counseling” is a term most often associated with counselors who are prepared to integrate secular psychology’s methodologies and treatments into their counseling.
3. Answers in Genesis has produced an excellent video on this very topic called Counterfeit Counseling by Pastor Brad Bigney.
4. Dr. Stuart Scott, one of the editors of Counseling the Hard Cases, spoke at the Answers for Pastors conference in October 2013 on the sufficiency of Scripture in biblical counseling.
5. This is not to say that every biblical counseling case ends successfully. God’s Word—our fully reliable and sufficient source of truth—requires the believer to submit and obey in humility, but sadly, some people do not submit to the authority of Scripture.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye, “the Science Guy,” is getting his own film—Bill Nye: Science Guy. This documentary, funded on Kickstarter, is supposed to be “A film for science. A film for the cosmos. The full access, exclusive film about Bill Nye.” The page for the premiere of the event describes it as,

Bill Nye is retiring his kid show act in a bid to become more like his late professor, astronomer Carl Sagan. Sagan dreamed of launching a spacecraft that could revolutionize interplanetary exploration. Bill sets out to accomplish Sagan's mission, but he is pulled away when he is challenged by evolution and climate change contrarians to defend the scientific consensus. Can Bill show the world why science matters in a culture increasingly indifferent to evidence?

Based on that description, it doesn’t sound like a film for science—it’s a film to promote evolution and man-made climate change as fact. A number of well-known atheists are listed as featuring in this movie—and so am I! In addition to his movie, Nye will also have his own TV show again, Bill Nye Saves the World, on Netflix this spring. Although we don’t know for sure, it’s very likely this show will also dedicate time to defending evolutionary ideas and drastic man-made climate change.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Third Anniversary of the Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate

Today marks three years since the widely publicized Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate on creation vs. evolution here at the Creation Museum. That was a very exciting event, and I praise God that I was able to clearly share the gospel several times, both to Bill Nye and the millions of people who were watching via YouTube live stream or later on our YouTube channel.

I also was able to help people understand the following:

1. There’s a big difference between historical science and observational science.

2. Molecules-to-man evolution is historical science and thus is a belief system (a religion).

3. The real battle between Bill Nye and me was a worldview clash.

4. Bill Nye holds to naturalism, which for all intents and purposes is atheism.

The Second Debate

Since that debate we’ve opened the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Kentucky. Well, the day after it opened in 2016, Bill Nye and his film crew came and toured the Ark. As I guided him through the Ark for over two hours, our conversation ended up being a passionate, but amicable, second debate.

I was able to present the gospel to him again very clearly, and we pray that his heart will be softened and that he will recognize his desperate need to receive Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

[...]

Bring Both Debates Home

You can bring home both my original debate with Bill Nye and the second debate at the Ark Encounter. These resources are great conversation starters with unbelieving friends or family members. They’re also great for science classes, homeschool, or churches. Believers will be encouraged with answers to the skeptical questions of our day and will see firsthand how to respond to these objections.

You can order both debates as a DVD combo (also available as a download) or order the download bundle that gives you instant access to both debates and includes the Inside the Nye/Ham Debate ebook (also available as a physical book and DVD combo). Inside the Nye/Ham Debate provides detailed answers to the many complex questions that I did not have time to answer during the debate. This is a great resource as you watch the debate!

You can order the Two-Debate Combo or the Nye/Ham Debate Download Bundle, which includes the ebook, from our online store.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

AIG staff writer #fundie answersingenesis.org

Being a creationist for the wrong reason is wrong . . .


Do we feel solidarity with Muslim creationists? The question is largely similar to whether we feel solidarity with those in the Intelligent Design Movement. On one hand, we certainly use many of the same arguments and agree that evolution is an unscientific, by-faith explanation of origins from a naturalistic standpoint. Just as those in the Intelligent Design Movement may generate scientific research we agree with, and just as they may point out societal problems evolution has led to, so also may Muslims.

On the other hand, it is very easy to exaggerate the bond of Muslim and Christian creationists, as the Post article seems to do. The problem stems, first, from a focus on the creationist element of each group’s identity and, second, from forgetting that creationist views are intellectually submissive to religious views. Answers in Genesis is a ministry upholding God’s Word first and foremost—and, because of that, our mission is entirely incompatible with an organization promoting a Koranic worldview. Our position on creation is an outgrowth of a biblical worldview, and our mission is closely tied to defending that connection.

Thus, to even imply that we would find Muslim creationists more like-minded than evolutionists (Muslim or otherwise) misses the point. Any worldview that fails to begin with God’s Word is ultimately flawed, just as any individual without a saving relationship with Jesus Christ remains responsible for their sins before a just God.

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

Did Dinosaurs Evolve into Birds?
IN A BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW, BIRDS WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN AROUND BEFORE DINOSAURS EVER WALKED THE EARTH—A WHOLE DAY BEFORE!
According to evolutionary thinking, modern birds are descendants of dinosaurs. But the biblical worldview stands in sharp contrast to this. According to God’s Word, birds were created fully formed and functioning to reproduce after their own kind on Day Five of Creation Week. Dinosaurs, which are land animals, would not have been created until Day Six. So in a biblical worldview, birds would have actually been around before dinosaurs ever walked the Earth—a whole day before!

Is there any compelling evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds? Not at all! Dinosaurs were reptiles and share traits common among reptiles—not birds. They were likely cold-blooded, had lungs like other reptiles, and were covered in scales. Birds, on the other hand, are warm-blooded, have unique lungs, hollow bones, and are covered in feathers. They are completely and utterly different. Adding to the problems with evolutionary ideas about bird evolution is the fact that modern birds like parrots, loons, and owls are found in the fossil record in some of the very same layers as dinosaurs. How could modern birds have evolved from dinosaurs when modern, fully formed birds are found alongside dinosaurs in the very same layers?1

Did dinosaurs have feathers? In a biblical worldview, we do not expect to find feathered dinosaurs. Currently the evidence does not support the idea that dinosaurs were covered in feathers. Now while we may not know for sure what dinosaurs looked like, what we do know is that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. They—like dinosaurs—were specially created by God in the beginning to reproduce according to their kind.

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

Did Dinosaurs Have Feathers?
Many scientists today have accepted the idea that dozens of different species of dinosaurs were covered in feathers. This has resulted in recent artist’s depictions showing dinosaurs covered in soft down or even flight-like feathers. These depictions are nothing short of bizarre and leave the dinosaurs looking quite ridiculous. But was Jurassic World wrong in leaving off the feathers and opting instead for the traditional scaly bodies?

FIBROUS FILAMENTS WITH BRISTLES ARE A FAR CRY FROM THE COMPLEX STRUCTURE OF A FEATHER!
Feathers are highly complex structures that grow out of skin follicles, like human hairs. Scales, the traditional covering of dinosaurs, are folds in the skin. However, scientists now claim that many—if not most—dinosaurs had the ability to grow feathers. But the supposed evidence for feathered dinosaurs is scanty and speculative. Some dinosaur fossils have been uncovered that contain fibrous filaments. These filaments do not contain the same elements as feathers—shafts, barbs, or barbules—but instead merely have bristles. Fibrous filaments with bristles are a far cry from the complex structure of a feather! Despite the artistic license taken by many dinosaur sculptors and artists today, there is no conclusive evidence that any dinosaur had feathers.

Why are so many scientists eager to accept the idea of feathered terror, like T. rex, if the evidence is so speculative and controversial? Well, this easy acceptance with so little supporting evidence highlights that this is a worldview battle. Evolutionists firmly believe that modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs. This is such a firm belief that many dinosaurs are referred to as “non-avian dinosaurs” and birds are called “avian dinosaurs.” Some scientists will go as far as to say that dinosaurs are not extinct, they are alive today all over the world twittering on telephone wires, eating at our bird feeders, and flying in flocks above our heads. The desperate desire for evidence to substantiate this idea is so strong that many evolutionary scientists eagerly jumped on the feathery dinos bandwagon despite the lack of evidence! Really, it is an evolutionary worldview that drives this acceptance and continued promotion of the idea.

Ken Ham & Dr. Andrew Snelling #fundie answersingenesis.org

Dinosaur Footprint Wall in Bolivia

A recent article highlighted the Cal Orcko archaeological site in Bolivia. This site in South America has numerous, well-preserved dinosaur footprints (originally listed as over 5,000), and another 5,000 tracks were discovered in 2015. Some of the dinosaurs that left these footprints were Ankylosaurs, Titanosaurs, Carnotaurus, and a juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex.

These fossilized dinosaur footprints were originally discovered in 1985, but local mining of the limestone in the area has brought many more prints to light, starting in 1994. The area is now an official Bolivian paleontological site and an application has been submitted to designate it as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

But even more interesting is that the footprints are not on flat ground but rather on an almost vertical wall; and the vast majority seem to be moving in one direction (downhill as the geography now stands). Now this is a region that has had lots of tectonic activity in the recent past, so this was probably flat ground at the time the dinosaurs were making the tracks.

Of course what makes this intriguing from a biblical creation and Flood geology perspective is that the tracks are preserved so well, and that we see a diverse grouping of what were considered to be both herbivores and carnivores. We also have tracks from juvenile dinosaurs—some alone and others side by side with adults of the same species. A couple of quotes about the Cal Orcko archaeological site from the Guardian website really stood out:

That ankylosaur was running. It sank its four toes into the ground, rather than its heel. . . .

The creatures' feet sank into the soft shoreline in warm damp weather, leaving marks that were solidified by later periods of drought. Wet weather then returned, sealing the prints below mud and sediment. The wet-dry pattern was repeated seven times, preserving multiple layers of prints. The cherry on the cake was added when tectonic activity pushed the flat ground up to a brilliant viewing angle—as if nature was aware of its tourism potential.

So we have running dinosaurs and what appears to be alternating periods of water covering the sand flats and then receding for a short time, only to cover the area once again. This sounds a lot like an area where dinosaurs may have been fleeing rising floodwaters, which brought the sediment to quickly cover and preserve the footprints the fleeing dinosaurs left behind.

Dr. Andrew Snelling, geologist and AiG’s director of research, had this to say:

All claims about the environment in which these dinosaurs lived and how they left their footprints are mere speculation (i.e., based on historical science, not observational science), because no scientists were there at the time to observe and report to us what happened. So it is hardly an observed fact that this was a lake. But what we do observe is that these footprints were made in a sandy limestone, and that in that same limestone are the fossilized remains of snails, bivalves, fish, turtles and crocodiles.1 Furthermore, we know from observations that animals and footprints are not fossilized in lime sand that slowly accumulates and is exposed even for a brief period to bacteria, and the sun, wind and waves. Rapid accumulation and rapid burial are required. And lime sand is usually produced by turbulent ocean waters. Yet dinosaurs are land-dwellers. Thus these fossils of water-dwelling animals and fossilized dinosaur footprints found in this sandy limestone are consistent with the Flood cataclysm, when the rising ocean waters swept rapidly over the land in oscillating surges, repeatedly engulfing fleeing land animals as it buried their footprints with water-dwelling animals. These fossilized dinosaur footprints testify to these dinosaur herbivores and carnivores being more interested in fleeing en masse in one direction to escape the destructive waters than their next meal.

Yet again we see evidence of the Flood that God sent as a judgment for mankind’s wickedness (Genesis 6:17) and of the Ark that He had Noah build—a reminder to us today of another Ark of salvation, Jesus Christ. These fossilized footprints stand as a reminder that observational science always confirms the Bible.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Footnotes

See Martin Lockley et al., “Titanosaurid Trackways from the Upper Cretaceous of Bolivia: Evidence for Large Manus, Wide-Gauge Locomotion and Gregarious Behaviour,” Cretaceous Research 23, no. 3 (June 2002): 383–400, doi:10.1006/cres.2002.1006.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Where Did the Rattlesnake’s Rattle Come From?

How did the rattlesnake get its rattle? A recent article about new research on the rattlesnake’s formidable rattle states, “The evolution of the rattle has baffled scientists because, unlike other complex physical traits like eyes or feathers, it has no obvious precursor or intermediate stage.” According to David Pfennig at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “There is no half-rattle.”

Well, to those who start with the Bible, it’s no surprise that no such thing as a “half-rattle” exists. But for an evolutionist this is a major puzzle. Now evolutionists have suggested perhaps snakes started shaking their tails to warn predators, and eventually the noise-making rattle “evolved . . . as a more effective signal that took advantage of the pre-existing behavior.” But “how exactly the rattlesnakes then got their noisemaker is a more difficult question.”

The article suggests two different ways:

Some snakes were genetically pre-disposed to retain some extra skin on their tails when they shed, which made noise when they shook it and so this trait was selected for until it developed into the rattle.

The other, more controversial idea is that the snakes developed a callus on their tail from shaking it against the rough ground, and if the propensity to develop a callus was affected by genetic variability, it would be selected for until the structure underwent “genetic assimilation,” and the rattle would form without the need for irritating the skin.

But where the snake got its rattle isn’t actually a difficult question needing such an imaginative answer. It’s only a difficult question if you reject the true history recorded in God’s Word in favor of man’s ideas about the past. Observational science demonstrates that nearly 40 rattlesnake species probably belonged to one original created kind. There are no “half-rattles” because God uniquely designed this kind with a rattle.

The rattle would be something we now call a defense structure, but it wouldn’t have been necessary as such before the Fall. Though a rattlesnake’s toxic venom wouldn’t have existed before the Fall, the rattle would become a merciful warning to the fangs behind it in a post-Fall world. (See more about a biblical response to these post-Fall defense/attack structures in the 2009 Answers article, “Designed to Kill in a Fallen World.”)

By the way, where is there “half-anything” in living things today? If molecules-to-man evolution is true, why don’t we see “half-lots-of-things” all over the world? That’s because evolution is simply not true—it’s a fairy tale, an attempt to explain life without God.

When we start with God’s Word, we don’t need to invent fanciful stories about what might have happened in the unobserved past. His Word provides us with the true history of the universe.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

AiG’s “Million Dollar” Tracts Are Scaring Secularists This Halloween

It’s almost Halloween, and the secularists are out scaring up drama about our unique Dino-Bucks and Noah’s Ark gospel tracts. These tracts look like—as one article pointed out—“fake” one million dollar bills (of course they’re obviously fake!). On the back, they feature what the author calls “some pretty rude messages”—i.e., the gospel.

Secularists are acting as if they have just discovered a secret mission of AiG: to reach kids with the gospel during Halloween! We’ve got news for them: for decades now, we’ve been reaching children with the gospel at Halloween (and throughout the year)! It’s almost a shock to these secularists, as if Christians haven’t been sharing the good news of the gospel with the world since Christ’s death and Resurrection! Actually, I have more news for the secularists: the message of salvation was first given about 6,000 years ago as recorded in Genesis 3:15—and has been shared by believers ever since! So, yes, we’re guilty! We’ve been found out! AiG is sharing the gospel with kids of all ages! And yes, Christians have been warning people about a real place called hell for two millennia, because God’s Word does!

The secularists only want children to hear their anti-gospel message! They want kids to be told they’re just animals in an evolutionary death-and-struggle world, bound for a purposeless, meaningless existence, and then oblivion as they die and cease to exist!

image

The article states, “Luring [children] with fake money and threatening them with eternal damnation and pain is evil. It’s wrong and it’s abusive.” It’s true that one of our tracts reads, “Have you lied, stolen, or used God’s name in vain? . . . The penalty for your crimes against God is death and eternal Hell.” But these tracts don’t merely tell children about hell (and certainly don’t threaten them)—these tracts ask the “million dollar question” about what happens after death, and tell people how to get to heaven through a relationship with Jesus Christ. That’s the good news. But you also have to hear the bad news in order to receive the good news. What a horrible person a physician would be if he told a dying person that he’s fine. That patient needs to know the bad news that he’s dying in order to realize he needs the cure! The purpose of these tracts is to give the “cure” of the gospel! (Sadly, these secularists only want to focus on the bad news.)

The article accuses me of thinking that “children are wretched, lying creatures” and of “damning children for celebrating a holiday that [Ken Ham] . . . assumes is pagan.” Well, though I wouldn’t put it in those terms, it’s true that all of us, even children, have sinful natures because of Adam’s Fall (Genesis 3). But neither I nor anyone else can send a person to hell—only a person’s sin of unbelief can condemn him to an eternity without God. The point is that God wants to save us from hell!

Dr. Russ Humphreys' #fundie answersingenesis.org

Creationists are trying to keep up with science . . .

This is a review of Dr. Russ Humphreys' "A Young-Earth Relativistic Cosmology."

In the first paper, he argued that the Bible does provide a foundation for cosmological thinking. It was suggested that the “expanse” (or “firmament” KJV) is the place where the sun, moon and stars are: interstellar space. The waters above the expanse were understood to be a water boundary to the created universe. The birds fly, not “in the expanse’, but “in the face of the expanse’-referring to the atmosphere of the Earth. (This perspective led to a reconsideration of the Canopy theory-which was rejected as neither biblically-based nor scientifically necessary.) ( Uh-oh, now we have no source of water for Noahs flood - Mr Spak)Several biblical texts refer to God stretching out the heavens: these were understood to mean that “God stretched out space itself at some time in the past”. This is an important point of the reinterpretation, as it is linked with a relativistic expansion of the universe during creation week.

Humphreys considered the word “deep” (tehom) in the Bible (Genesis chapter 1 verse 2) and suggested that it should be understood as ordinary liquid water. The cosmological model that was developed from this framework considers all the galaxies in the universe to have been formed from the waters of this “deep”. Based on an estimated mass of the universe of 3 times 10 to the power 51 kilograms, Humphreys calculates that the “deep” would be a sphere of water with a radius of at least 1 light year. Since the expanse is formed in “the midst of the waters” (Genesis chapter 1 verse 6), it follows that the Earth must be at or near the centre of the universe.

Humphreys suggests that the Bible teaches a cosmological geocentricity.

The paper covers much more ground than can be reviewed here, but the 6 general conclusions are listed below. They all have relevance to the proposed relativistic cosmology.
1. Matter in the universe is bounded.
2. The universe has expanded.
3. The Earth is near the centre of the universe.
4. The universe is young as measured by clocks on Earth.
5.The original matter God created was ordinary liquid water.
6.God transformed the water into various elements by compaction.

The question of how a biblically-based cosmology could be constructed was addressed in the second paper. Humphreys drew attention to the necessity of presuppositions when formulating cosmological models.

Stephen Hawking and George Ellis have written: “…we are not able to make cosmological models without some mixture of ideology”. Their work makes use of the Copernican Principle: the universe has no edges and no centre-it looks everywhere broadly the same. This principle, it is important to note, is not a conclusion of science, but an assumption thought to be valid.

The implications of the Copernican Principle for modern cosmology are profound. Humphreys argues that when these ideas are expressed mathematically and applied to the equations of general relativity, they result in Big-Bang cosmologies. Humphreys looks again at general relativity theory, but using different presuppositions. These are: the universe is of finite size and has a boundary; the Earth is near the centre; the cosmos has been expanded by God in the past; the cosmos is young. The picture that emerges is dramatically different from the Big Bang. The following scenario combines Humphreys” biblical framework and the results of his research into general relativity theory.

When the “deep” was created, it was a black hole. Under gravity, it collapsed and the temperature, pressure and density increased to the stage where thermonuclear reactions occurred and nucleosynthesis took place.

Intense light was everywhere inside the black hole. The collapse is considered to have lasted one day-and then, in a creative act of God, the black hole was converted into a white hole. The result was a rapid, inflationary expansion of space. This is when the waters above the expanse, the expanse and the waters below the expanse were differentiated. With expansion came cooling-and at about 3000 Kelvin, atoms would have been formed and the expanse would become transparent. Thermal radiation in the expanding expanse would be very uniform and the temperature would continue to drop. At the end of expansion, the temperature reached 2.76 kelvin (which we observe today).

At some time during the expansion, the shrinking event horizon would approach the centre of the white hole-the Earth. Whilst this is suggested to have occurred on the morning of the 4th Day (Earth time), the time dilation effects of relativity theory permit “billions of years worth of physical processes [to take] place in the distant cosmos". Stars and galaxies formed, and time elapsed so that light was able to travel to every corner of the universe. Hence, Adam and Eve, on the 6th Day (Earth time) were able to look into the expanse and see the splendour of the heavens.

The model thus claims to explain all three of the cosmological phenomena mentioned earlier: light from distant galaxies, galactic red shifts and the cosmic microwave background. It suggests that time elapsed at different rates on Earth and in the expanse (6 Days Earth time and billions of years cosmological time, possible because the Earth is at the centre of the universe).

Danny R Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

Discussing the COBE background radiation data vs Genesis . . .

However, there are some lingering questions. For instance, while the COBE experiment was designed to measure temperature variations, the variations allegedly found were an order of magnitude less than those predicted. Yet this is hailed as a great confirmation of the big-bang model. Some have written that the COBE results perfectly matched predictions, but this is simply not true. Since the COBE results, some theorists have recalculated big-bang models to produce the COBE measurements, but this hardly constitutes a perfect match. Instead, the data have guided the theory rather than the theory predicting the data.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

image

[...]

Various media reported that Nye had a great concern that the Ark Encounter (and the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis ministry) will adversely influence children.

Isn’t it amazing, 1) considering all the ardently evolutionary museums across America and around the world, 2) recognizing that evolution is taught as fact to millions of students in the public schools (in the United States and across the globe), and 3) noting all the evolutionary programs on TV and articles in magazines and so on, that secularists like Bill Nye are greatly fearing one Creation Museum and now one Ark?

The secular arguments about origins and earth history are easily demolished. Thus secularists have to censor creation science beliefs from our schools. They fear they may easily lose people to creationist arguments.

Watch some of the most captivating and eye-opening video segments of my Ark tour with Mr. Nye in this recent blog post.

We have been blessed to have received many great testimonies from guests visiting the Ark Encounter in just its first week. Here is one that greatly encouraged me, and it came from a pastor: "[T]he Holy Spirit was strong in that place. I stayed choked up for the first two levels. The longer I stayed and the more I saw, the more I thought on the Word of God and what Christ did for us—I could hardly talk!"

Tim Chaffey #fundie answersingenesis.org

[In an article about how Ark Encounter was being "misrepresented."]

Rosenau implied that every sign at the Ark contains scientific errors, but there are plenty of wayfinding signs that are scientifically accurate. That is, the exit signs identify the exits and the restroom signs direct people to the restrooms.

Dr. Andrew Fabich #fundie answersingenesis.org

With the Ark opening, there’s been a flurry of news headlines. Some are fair, but most are slanted. It’s no surprise: the media write slanted headlines. Many are even taught to do this. But there’s been a significant switch lately.

I heard it first during the Ham-Nye debate. Bill Nye [“the Science Guy” of TV fame] kept referring to biblical creation as “Ham’s interpretation,” as if the young-earth interpretation somehow belongs to Ken Ham. In an effort to pigeonhole Ken as narrow-minded, they’re revealing just how narrow-minded they are. I can only fathom the shock of most journalists if they even checked unreliable Wikipedia to learn that Ken Ham isn’t “creation’s Lone Ranger.”

If Ken’s alone in saying the earth is young, then why am I writing this blog? Because he isn’t alone! You know what? Others throughout history have said the earth is young. Even prominent scientists alive today agree with this position—and not just here in America. There are young earth creationists in other industrialized nations all around the world. In fact, a quick Wikipedia search (which isn’t always 100% accurate) even shows that the same views that Ken holds were well respected within Christendom in the past and are still respected now.

You know, Christianity and biblical creation aren’t based on what Ken Ham has said, currently says, or will say. News flash: biblical creation depends on the authority of Scripture.

I’m offended by how journalists misrepresent my personal beliefs. My faith isn’t based on “thus saith Ken Ham.” What’s more is that evolutionists would be equally as appalled if we called it “Nye’s evolution!” From preschool through PhD in secular education, I’ve never been taught “Nye’s evolution.” Calling it “Ham’s interpretation” is a straw man argument used in ignorance for emotional reasons.

My point (like Ken’s and myriad others’) is that the Bible is authoritative. It’s ironic that journalists expect their readers to trust them as authorities (when they aren’t experts on the topics they report about) while holding others (like Ken who has studied the Bible and this topic for years and is using God’s Word as his authority) to a completely different standard.

The Bible is the authority. Period. I beg the media: stop calling this “Ham’s version.” Call it biblical creation. You’re marginalizing your readership. I’m not saying, “Get rid of your slant” (in fact, you could read on the Answers in Genesis’ website about how we’re all biased). I am asking, “Do everyone a favor—quit calling this ‘Ham’s interpretation.’”

Troy Lacey and Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Atheism Is Religion

Atheists Down Under Are Worried

Do atheists have beliefs? Of course they do!

Atheists believe that matter arose by natural processes. Can they prove this? Not at all!

Atheists believe the universe, all life, the laws of nature, and laws of logic arose by natural processes. Can they prove this? Of course not, but they believe it to be so.

Atheists believe they cease to exist after they die. Can they prove this? No, but they believe this is what happens.

Atheists believe no God exists. Can they prove this? Not at all—it’s their belief.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word religion this way:

1. a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3: archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Even though he has not labeled himself as such, Bill Nye, for all intents and purposes, is a practicing atheist. Look at this short video clip as I was speaking to him recently at the Ark Encounter where he admitted to believing life arose by natural processes—he has a belief, a religion. Atheists have a “system of belief held to with ardor and faith.” Atheists are very religious people.

Now, in the United States, atheists have conducted a propaganda campaign to try to brainwash the public into believing that people who believe in God are religious, but those who don’t believe in God are not religious. Because of this atheist propaganda, many have been indoctrinated to believe that when secularists get the Bible out of public schools, or crosses and nativity scenes out of public places, they removed religion so the situation could be neutral. However, the reality is that these secularists have imposed their atheistic religion on the schools and culture in general. As Jesus taught: “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” (Luke 11:23) There is no neutral position. No person has no religion—everyone has a religion, and ultimately it comes down to those who are for the true God and those who are not.

ATHEISTS HAVE CONDUCTED A PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TO TRY TO BRAINWASH THE PUBLIC INTO BELIEVING THAT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD ARE RELIGIOUS, BUT THOSE WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD ARE NOT RELIGIOUS.

Now atheists from Down Under have been desperately trying to convince people in Australia that they have no religion.

Tuesday, August 9, is Census Night in Australia (though people have several weeks to complete it). Every five years, all Australian citizens are required to fill out the census form. As in America, census results help the government figure out where and how government funds are allocated. These allocations can seriously impact Christian organizations such as Christian schools, charities, chaplain offices, and other religiously affiliated organizations.

Of particular concern is question 19, which is the only optional question on the census form. This question is the religious identity question. Several different options are available, including six Christian denominations as well as Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. There is also an “other” category to mark, and then additional information needs to be supplied in a text box. But what makes this question stand out is that “no religion” is the first option to choose from. Now this is absurd, because no one can claim they have no religion! So that option should be totally deleted from the census form

However, according to the Canberra Declaration newsletter,1 the reason why this choice occurs first is that the Atheist Foundation of Australia lobbied for it three years ago. It’s possible that some people may select this box simply because it appears first, especially if they are hurrying through the form or if at first glance they don’t see their own religious affiliation listed. This would be detrimental to religious organizations, as government subsidies may be cut or diminished based on the answer to this question. But a religious affiliation is a totally different matter from claiming one has no religion anyway! As well as listing various denominations, Islam, and so on, atheism should be listed as the religion (as opposed to “no religion”) for those who choose this affiliation.

Much Campaigning about Nothing

In fact this potential cutting of government funding may be just the hope of the Atheist Foundation. In the weeks leading up to tomorrow’s census, the Atheist Foundation of Australia launched a “Mark 'No religion'” website and have been conducting an advertising campaign to encourage people to do so. Some of the tactics appear aimed at making “unsure” or “undecided” people use this option. There has also been an attempt by the Atheist Foundation of Australia to encourage teens and children to be counted as “no religion,”2 claiming that only adults can validly claim a religion. Of course, part of the atheist campaign is to try to indoctrinate young people in particular that atheists don’t have a religion. But young people need to understand that atheism is a religion—and it’s a religion of purposelessness, meaninglessness, and hopelessness.

The “other” box on this form has also been gaining momentum among some segment of the population. Apparently there has been an increase in the number of “Jedi” in the past few censuses.3 Ironically the aforementioned Atheist Foundation is trying to get people to quit claiming Jedi as a religion, as they claim it will falsely inflate the undefined religion category at the expense of their false idea of no religion. Apparently “the Force” is not strong with them.

ATHEISM IS A RELIGION. IT’S A RELIGION WHICH EXPLAINS LIFE WITHOUT GOD.

But when you really stop to think about it, why is there such a push by the Atheist Foundation of Australia for marking the “no religion” box? To get the “no religion” box put at the very top seems like it should be satisfaction enough; but no, an all-out media blitz has been (and still is) underway. As we’ve pointed out many times before, atheism is a religion. It’s a religion which explains life without God. As mentioned here (and outlined above), one definition of religion is “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Yes, atheism qualifies as a religion!

Furthermore, why should the Atheist Foundation even care? In an atheistic worldview, when you die that’s it (or as Bill Nye said at the Ark Encounter, “When you die you’re done”). There is no ultimate basis for morality, for life, or even for logic. And although Bill Nye falsely claims that he arrived at his belief in atheism (and life by natural processes) based on the evidence,4 why should he trust his senses anyway? What gives him the basis for accepting what he perceives as reality? What makes his interpretation of the evidence right and a creation scientist’s wrong?

Ultimately, to the Atheist Foundation of Australia, what difference should it make if one set of chemicals wrapped in a blanket of skin believes something different from another? In their worldview, our brains are just doing what the chemicals and electric impulses in them direct us to. They can’t even fall back on the relative morality of “what society decides goes” argument: at the last census (2011) only 22.3% claimed “no religion” as their option on the form.5 They also have to at least recognize that many of the religious organizations their strategy may impact are those that, even in an atheistic worldview, do good work. Homeless shelters, Christian-based hospitals, Red Cross centers, charities, and church food pantries all might be negatively impacted. So what does this show about their relative morality? It’s relatively worthless! And really what does it all matter in an ultimately fatalistic worldview?

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye and Bananas

Recently, I walked with Bill Nye “the Science Guy” through the three decks of our life-size Ark in Northern Kentucky. It turned out to be our second debate; the first one was 2014 in the Creation Museum. This latest debate lasted about two hours. (For the background, see “Bill Nye Visits the Ark Encounter.”)

After his Ark tour, Bill made many public statements about his visit. He reportedly said that the Ark was “much more troubling or disturbing than I thought it would be.” NBC News reported, “Nye said the exhibit encourages visitors to trust faith over science and thereby undercuts their ability to engage in critical thinking.”

But here’s what is really disturbing and troubling. Nye wants to convince all children to believe that they are just animals who arose by natural processes—and that there’s no God! The implications of this belief on the question of the meaning and purpose of life are beyond serious!

Nye also claims that the exhibits inside the Ark encourage visitors to “trust faith over science.” Actually, our exhibits show quite conclusively that observational science in the fields of geology, genetics, and anthropology confirm biblical history concerning man, animals, and the Flood of Noah’s day. In reality, it’s Bill Nye who has the blind faith to believe that somehow life arose by natural processes. And his evidence? That DNA, including its information and language system, arising by natural processes, came about to the fact that “we’re here.”

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Hammy vs the wrong creation myth . . .(much cutting and pasting - go to link for full effect)

Imagine my shock when I discovered that some Muslim leaders were using their own form of “creation evangelism” to convert people to Islam!

Stephen said that the speaker, in an excited, authoritative tone, declared: “The purpose of life is to be grateful to our Benefactor and conform to His rules.”

The Muslim leader went on to discuss that we need a system designed to help us be grateful to the Benefactor and to conform … and that system is Islam. He also emphasized that the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad were the authority.
Stephen and his pastor said that this was actually an Islamic “creation evangelism” lecture! It majored on design, which could have a major impact on many non-Muslims. But the argument of design was used to connect people to Islam!

As I’ve often said, AiG isn’t about converting people to “creation.” AiG seeks to teach people the truths of God’s Word so they’ll understand and believe the gospel.
Then I went into detail as to how people need to be taught that the Bible’s history in Genesis is true, that it’s confirmed by observational science and that the millions-of-years/evolutionary ideas that permeate the media and schools are not true.

As we often state on our website, AiG uses the design arguments (among many others) to proclaim the Christian faith—which is how we need to use such arguments.

AiG is at the cutting edge of evangelism today. We’re not just battling the secularization of the culture, but also against false religions like Islam. The message that God’s Word beginning in Genesis can be trusted is the answer for our world.


Bodie Hodge #fundie answersingenesis.org

When it comes to authorship of the Bible, of course men were involved. Christians would be the first to point this out. For example, Paul wrote letters to early churches that are included in the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15–16). David wrote many of the Psalms. Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). In fact, it is estimated that over 40 different human authors were involved.2 So, this is not the issue.

The issue is this: did God have any involvement or not? Did God inspire the authors of the Scriptures?3 When someone claims that the Bible was written by men and not God, this is an absolute statement that reveals something extraordinary.

It reveals that the person saying this is claiming to be transcendent! When one claims that God was not inspiring the human authors of the Bible, that person is claiming to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent!

Omniscient: they are claiming to be an all-knowing authority on the subject of God’s inspiration, to refute God’s claim that Scripture was inspired by Him (2 Timothy 3:16).
Omnipresent: they are claiming that they were present, both spiritually and physically, to observe that God had no part in aiding any of the biblical authors.
Omnipotent: they are claiming that if God had tried to help the biblical authors, then they had the power to stop such an action.

So, the person making the claim that the Bible was written by men is claiming to be God; but these three attributes belong solely to God. This is a religious issue of humanism versus Christianity. The person is claiming (perhaps inadvertently) that they are the ultimate authority over God and are trying to convince you that God is subservient to them. This needs to be addressed in responding to them.

Andrew A. Snelling #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Biblical Flood Perspective

Skeptics claim that it is impossible for the chalk beds to have been rapidly deposited during the yearlong biblical Flood. They say it would take a long time for the trillions of foraminifers and coccoliths to breed, grow, die, and be buried to produce these thick chalk beds all around the globe.

When they say this, they assume that ocean water conditions have always been like they are today. But during the global Flood cataclysm, water conditions were very different—hot volcanic waters and nutrients changed the water temperature and chemistry, which caused the rapid blooming of foraminifers and coccoliths in just hours, days, or weeks, not millions of years.6

These skeptics also ignore the fact that these chalk beds were deposited across the continents by ocean waters that rose high enough to completely flood the continents.

Meanwhile, the chalk beds are not found under the ocean floor where the limey ooze is today. And today’s limey oozes are nowhere near as pure in calcium carbonate as the chalk beds formed in the past.

Where do we see limey ooze slowly accumulating on the continents today—and burying and fossilizing huge ocean dwellers (like the extinct plesiosaurs and mosasaurs) together with large land dwellers (like the extinct dinosaurs and pterosaurs)? Or what about the fossil found in the Kansas beds of the voracious predatory fish Xiphactinus audax, 13 feet (4 m) long with a nearly perfectly preserved 6-foot-long (1.8 m) fish Gillicus arcuatus inside of it?

Nowhere! We simply do not see such burial and fossilization happening today on such a massive and catastrophic scale.

To fossilize such large creatures, ginormous amounts of sediments had to bury them instantly before the creatures had time to escape. Fish are known to decompose quickly unless they are completely buried within a few days. Yet the fish found fossilized in the chalk beds show no signs of decay. So the claim that the chalk beds accumulated slowly—one grain at a time falling to the bottom of a placid sea—is demolished by the evidence of all these catastrophically buried fossils.

Now also remember that these chalk beds stretch around the globe. So a global distribution of the chalk beds required a global Flood cataclysm, just as the Bible describes.

Chalk It Up to Assumptions

So what is the underlying message we have dug up? Never be discouraged or dissuaded from believing what God’s Word teaches just because a few skeptics raise what seem to be difficult questions or insist they have evidence that contradicts the Bible. As in this case, closer examination reveals that what they claim as “evidence” is really their interpretation of the data based on their assumption that the Genesis Flood never occurred.

Like the scoffers Peter warned about in 2 Peter 3, they are willfully ignorant or deliberately rejecting God’s Word, and thus they refuse to consider any interpretation of the evidence that would point to the Genesis Flood having occurred. Instead, they are trying to prove what they have already assumed.

But for those of us who seek to know the Lord and understand His work, good answers can be found. Just look at common chalk. It offers phenomenal evidence for the veracity of the biblical Flood—yet another testimony that we can trust God and His Word. Chalk another one up to God’s Word.

Dr. Danny R. Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

Spiritual Connection of Alien Abduction Claims

RESEARCHERS HAVE CATEGORIZED SOME COMMON ELEMENTS TO MOST CLAIMS OF ALIEN ABDUCTION.

Researchers1 have categorized some common elements to most claims of alien abduction. We need not discuss most of these here, but there are some important common themes. Many people report meeting a god-like creature or creatures during their abductions. Often these beings communicate universal-sounding messages or warn of impending nuclear or ecological disaster if mankind does not change his way. This amounts to a very hip, human-centered religious message.

Another common element is that most people who have claimed these close encounters with aliens profess spirituality, with a belief in God. As such, there is a wide distribution of denominations and sects represented among those who have claimed alien abduction. People reporting alien abductions also report indulging in the occult and new age practices in much higher proportion than the general population. Conspicuously absent from those reporting alien abductions are those who are truly born again followers of Christ. In fact, many researchers have collected reports of alien abductions abruptly ending when abductees verbally mention the name of Jesus.

These facts are extremely pertinent. If those who report alien abductions are sincere and truthful in relaying experiences that they firmly believe occurred, then we are left with the conclusion that there is a spiritual component, and that this spirituality is contrary to the Bible.

This is just one front in a spiritual war to divert people away from the truth of Scripture. We have already seen that the implication of the Bible is that Adam’s race is the only race of sentient, physical creatures in the universe. That is, there are no ETs to fly spaceships to earth. But if one believes in evolution, one must accept the likelihood that life, even intelligent life, has evolved many times on other worlds. Thus, if life exists elsewhere, then that would argue against the Bible and hence the God of the Bible. So a very effective tool in undermining the authority of the Bible and the gospel would be to convince as many people as possible that life exists elsewhere. What better way is there to do that than with flying saucers and “alien” visitations?

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Major Ark Coverage Continues, Including Down Under

We rejoice when the secular media cover AiG and the upcoming Ark Encounter theme park in a balanced way. That was the case today with a long segment about the life-size Ark that was broadcast on the popular TV program in Australia Sunday Night, which airs on the national TV network Channel 7.

The program featured some stunning drone images of the Ark under construction and the design studio where our world-class exhibits are being built. We gave this crew almost three days of unprecedented access to our facilities and extended gracious hospitality, and then held our breath.

Now, there were comments that made us cringe. For example, there was a statement by the producers that the Old Testament is supposedly my “rule book for life,” suggesting that the teachings of the New Testament and its gospel message are secondary. And by the way, twice we urged the crew to interview at least one of our PhD scientists, like geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling (an Aussie like me), to show how science confirms the Bible in Genesis, but they chose not to. And it would have been good for the producers to point out that hundreds of people who have been contracted to help us build the Ark did not have to sign our statement of faith.

But watch for yourself and be encouraged by the coverage and see some good video shots of the Ark. By the way, notice how Bill Nye “the Science Guy” comes across as condescending and snide as he shows his disdain for those of us who believe God’s Word beginning in Genesis—once again illustrating the struggle of the secular world to understand Christians.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

“World’s Largest Atheist Party” Is Really a Worship Service!

The Reason Rally 2016, advertised as the “world’s largest atheist party,” is really a kind of worship service. Why do I say this? Well, they worship man. Their rally in Washington, DC, in June will see people worshipping the god of self. They will exalt reason and declare that they have a blind faith that the universe and life arose by natural processes.

You know, we need to be calling atheism for what it really is—a religion, an anti-God religion—a religion that exalts fallible human reason.

In fact, atheist Lawrence Krauss, who is speaking at this rally, once said on video, “Forget Jesus—the stars died so you can be here.” You see, he is worshipping the stars. These atheists at the rally are no different from those the prophet Jeremiah spoke of: “Saying to a tree, ‘You are my father,’ And to a stone, ‘You gave birth to me’” (Jeremiah 2:27).

And what will the message of the rally be? “Become an atheist, die, and that’s the end—there’s no ultimate purpose to life.” So that being the case, why do atheists even attack Christianity? Why rally in DC in June? Well, it is because they actively “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

Atheists work hard against Christianity because they’re putting their hands over their eyes and ears and shouting, “I refuse to see and hear truth!” Their blind faith religion of believing that natural processes explain life without God is an anti-God religion.

The words of Daniel (5:23) describe today’s atheists: “The God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified.”

So, the atheists will worship man at the Reason Rally, just as stated in Scripture: “who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 1:25). But God says, “You have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven” (Daniel 5:23).

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye Agrees: “There’s No Such Thing as Race”

In a recent interview on Comedy Central’s The Nightly Show, host Larry Wilmore asked TV’s popular Bill Nye “The Science Guy” the question, “Does racism exist in the animal kingdom?” In Nye’s reply he made this statement, “We’re all the same . . . from a scientific standpoint there’s no such thing as race.” Bill Nye’s answer showed how much evolutionists have changed their position when it comes to the idea of different human races. Actually, this part of Nye’s answer is much more a biblical than an evolutionary view of humanity.

Changing Evolutionary Views

Bill Nye’s statement that “We’re all the same . . . from a scientific standpoint there’s no such thing as race” has been confirmed many times by observational science. For example, when researchers completed the incredible feat of mapping the human genome in 2000, they declared that, based on genetics, “there is only one race—the human race.”1 But this conclusion is not what was predicted in an evolutionary worldview.

DARWIN’S IDEAS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION WERE INHERENTLY RACIST.

Darwin’s ideas about human evolution were inherently racist. He held that different groups of humans evolved at different times so some were closer to their ape-like ancestors than others. The late Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, stated, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”2

Evolutionary ideas about race led to all kinds of horrors such as members of pygmy tribes being put in zoos beside apes,3 injustices toward groups like the Australian aborigines,4 and atrocities like Hitler’s attempted extermination of groups like the Jews, Poles, Slavs, and Gypsies. Each of these horrors—and many more—stemmed directly from Darwinian ideas about evolution. So, according to evolutionary predictions, we should expect to see many different races of humans, each at different levels of evolutionary development. Darwin even predicted that the “Caucasian” should have exterminated all other races. This is a failed prediction by the “high priest” of evolution.

Evolutionary ideas about race have largely changed, however, as a result of Christian challenges. As Bill Nye’s statement shows, observational science did not confirm the idea that there were many different races, but instead confirmed the biblical prediction of one race. The shade of our skin does not reflect evolutionary progress but is primarily the result of our genetic makeup that determines how much of a brown-colored pigment called melanin that our skin produces. More melanin produces a dark brown, “blackish” shade, and less melanin produces a lighter brown, “whitish” shade. There is no such thing as different races! This observation from science goes completely against what evolutionists of the past predicted, so evolutionists today were forced to change their ideas to align with the biblical view.

Unchanging Word of God

GOD’S WORD HAS ALWAYS TAUGHT THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE—THE HUMAN RACE.

Now, if instead of starting with man’s fallible ideas about the past, secular scientists had turned to God’s Word and started their thinking with the infallible Word of God, they would not have made these erroneous conclusions that later needed to be corrected by observational science. God’s Word has always taught that there is only one race—the human race. We did not evolve but were specially and uniquely created in God’s image from the very beginning (Genesis 1:26–27). God did not create different races, but “He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Every single human being is a descendant of the first couple, Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:27, 3:20), so we are all related. According to God’s Word, there are not different biological races, there is only one. God’s unchanging Word had it right all along and man’s changing ideas about the past had to catch up with it.

The Tower of Babel

During his interview with Larry Wilmore, Bill Nye said, “So everybody’s from East Africa . . . You migrate into Mesopotamia . . . You have to have lighter skin. It’s this balance between Vitamin D production in your skin and the breaking down of . . . folic acid. Then you migrate across Eurasia . . . Then there’s an ice age. All the snow’s frozen up in the mountains so you can walk to . . . [Alaska]. And then you come down the west coast. [Racism] started because you have these tribes and they have different skin colors as a result of ultraviolet light.” Now, while there are several evolutionary assumptions in Bill Nye’s statements (such as the idea that humanity began in East Africa) and we would certainly not agree with the timeline that Bill Nye holds to for these events, his statements actually sound similar to something a creationist might say!

According to God’s Word, all of humanity is descended from Adam and Eve. This first couple rebelled against God and introduced sin, death, and suffering into creation. Their descendants became increasingly wicked until “every intent of the thoughts of [their] heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5), so God sent a global Flood to judge their wickedness. Only eight people, the righteous Noah and his family, were saved through the Flood. After the Flood, God commanded Noah and his family, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1). But instead of filling the earth, like they had been commanded to, Noah’s descendants gathered together and built a city and a tower (in Mesopotamia, no less). So God confused their languages, thus forcing them to spread out over the earth (Genesis 11:1–9).

Shortly after the Flood and the Tower of Babel, much of the world was engulfed in the Ice Age that was part of the aftermath of the Flood. This would have exposed land bridges, such as the Bering Strait between modern-day Russia and Alaska. As people migrated from Babel, some of the groups walked across this land bridge into the Americas or came by boat where they eventually spread out from North America to South America.

THE TOWER OF BABEL EXPLAINS WHY WE ARE SO DIFFERENT.

The Tower of Babel explains why we are so different. The different people groups did not begin as humanity migrated from East Africa. They began after God confused the languages and groups began to migrate from Babel on the Plain of Shinar in the Middle East. This also divided up the family group and split the gene pool, including various skin shades. Depending on where these groups lived and populated, the resultant genes were left to their descendants.

Because these groups were reproductively isolated due to the language barrier as well as later geographical barriers, different features, like skin shade or eye shape, were associated with different groups. Babel explains our differences! Different people groups are not the result of evolution. They are the result of the division of languages at the time of the Tower of Babel.

(...)

Eventually, the same forces that supposedly produced humans should cause humans to evolve into something new, different, and more fit for the environment. So for Bill Nye to say that “All you’re going to get’s a human. You’re not going to get some new thing” is completely inconsistent with his amoeba-to-astronaut evolutionary worldview, but it is completely consistent with both God’s Word and observational science. According to God’s Word, each organism—including humans—reproduces according to its kind. So we should not expect to see humans producing anything but humans. And this is exactly what the evidence confirms: humans produce humans.

God’s Word Has Been Teaching One Race All Along
Observational science did not confirm evolutionary religious ideas about the past. So evolutionists simply changed evolutionary ideas to match the new data. But what they should have done is realized that the observational evidence confirms what God’s Word has been teaching all along. If they had started with God’s Word, they would have had the right foundation for their thinking and would not have reached such erroneous conclusions. It is God’s infallible Word—not man’s changing and fallible ideas—that is true and is confirmed by the observational evidence.