www.answersingenesis.org

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell #fundie

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell #fundie answersingenesis.org

The biblical global Flood happened about 4,350 years ago. The Epic of Gilgamesh, which contains a distorted account of the Flood, was written down in Mesopotamia, in the general region from which Abraham came. And it was probably written down on clay tablets at a time closer to Abraham’s day than to Moses’ time. Moses, inspired by God (2 Peter 1:21), wrote down the authentic account of the Flood, and it is preserved in the book of Genesis. Tyson asserts that the Akkadian epic, because it was written earlier than the Mosaic account, was the source of the Old Testament account. However, the source was the shared history of a real global Flood, not a shared piece of literature.

The biblical historical account, recorded under the inspiration of God by Moses, is completely believable in all its details. This genuine history in Genesis 6–9 and the distorted version adapted from Sumerian legends and preserved in the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh report on the same historical event. Therefore, the fact that there are some similarities is easily understood.

In contrast to the Gilgamesh epic, the authenticity of the biblical account is supported by internal consistency of the Scriptural account, the consistency of the Scriptural account with the worldwide geological evidence of the Flood, the scientific confirmation of the biblical global Flood in every detail, and the consistency of the Scriptural account of the Flood’s survivors with other recorded history. The capricious and unseemly nature of the gods in the Gilgamesh epic stand in sharp contrast to the just, holy, and merciful character of God in the authentic biblical account. There is no justification for supposing the true history in the Bible to be a spin-off of the Gilgamesh epic.

Troy Lacey #fundie

Troy Lacey #fundie answersingenesis.org

This is just another example of a false dichotomy, linking disbelief in evolution to a decline in scientific literacy. We would claim just the opposite; it is a consequence of evolutionary indoctrination which stifles scientific inquiry. After all, creation has not been taught in public schools for decades.

Lured? It was Bill Nye who attacked creationists for teaching kids the truth about history. The debate was the result of creationists defending themselves from Bill Nye’s attacks. Second, what unfounded ideas and data?

Actually, what is stated in the above two sentences by Bill Nye is really what Bill Nye did. He used slide after slide covering many different topics to try to intimidate people into believing his worldview, in order to explain the various evidences he brought up with very little detail, and when refuted, he brought it up again anyway! Perhaps this is so people could not even begin to understand the underlying assumptions inherent in his arguments.

Although Bill Nye wanted to destroy Ken Ham, Mr. Ham wasn’t out to destroy him. Ken Ham wanted to faithfully respond to the agreed-upon debate question, and graciously but firmly challenge Mr. Nye and all those watching concerning the nature of the origins debate—one of a worldview conflict because of differing starting points for those worldviews. Mr. Ham also unashamedly proclaimed the gospel as he wanted to win Mr. Nye and any skeptic watching over to the truth of God’s Word and the saving gospel message.

Interestingly, Bill Nye still hasn’t addressed this issue of the existence of logic. This was brought up by Ken Ham several times. Logic is a biblical concept and makes no sense in Bill Nye’s religion. Bill Nye’s humanistic worldview is materialistic in its outlook. So immaterial things like logic can’t exist in his religious perspective. He must cast aside his religion and borrow from a biblical worldview just to make his case against a biblical worldview!

Dr. Jean Lightner #fundie

Dr. Jean Lightner #fundie answersingenesis.org

Why Did God Make Viruses?

There are some fundamental differences in how creationists and evolutionists view life. Biblical creationists believe that God created various forms of life according to their kinds with the ability to reproduce and fill the earth (Genesis 1:21– 22, 24–28). This view includes the concepts that God had purpose in what He created and that it originally was very good (Genesis 1:31; Isaiah 45:18).

In contrast, evolutionists view life as all descending from a single common ancestor by chance processes. Evolutionary arguments tend to imply that life isn’t really very complex or well designed. For example, 100 years ago a cell was promoted as being nothing more than a blob of protoplasm, implying that it wouldn’t be difficult for it to arise by chance. This proved to be wrong; cells are incredibly complex structures. At one time evolutionists argued that organs or structures with no known function actually had no function; at the time, this included hundreds of organs and structures in the human body. Instead, these were believed to be vestiges of evolution. This argument has become rather vestigial itself, as these organs have been found to have function.

Yet this argument reappeared in genetics. Most of the DNA in our bodies does not code for proteins, so it was labeled “junk DNA” by evolutionists who assumed it has no function. As research continues, it is becoming clear that this DNA has numerous essential functions. The evolutionary worldview has a dismal track record for anticipating the astounding complexity in life uncovered by scientific research.

If God created everything good and with a purpose, why are there disease-causing bacteria and viruses in the world? It is true that we first learned about bacteria and viruses because of the problems they cause. Bacteria have been studied in considerable detail and are now recognized to be mainly helpful and absolutely essential for life on Earth; bacteria that cause disease (which developed as a result of the Fall) are the exceptions, not the rule. But what about viruses: what purpose could they possibly have?

(...)

Creationist Puzzle

The biblical record tells of a global Flood when all created kinds of unclean land animals were reduced to a population of two, the pair that was preserved with Noah on the Ark (Genesis 7). After the Flood, these animals reproduced and filled the earth again (Genesis 8:15–19). Today, many of these kinds are represented by whole families. For example, the dog family (Canidae) is believed to represent a created kind. However, this is a very diverse group of animals. There are foxes that are adapted to living in the arctic, and others that live in the desert. There is incredible variety seen in modern domestic dog breeds. Where did all this variety come from? And how could it arise so quickly given that the Flood occurred around 4,300 years ago?

The answer to this puzzle is probably quite complex. Some of the variety would have been carried by the pair of animals on the Ark. When parents pass traits on to their offspring, these traits can appear in new combinations in the offspring (Mendelian genetics). Natural selection can weed some existing traits out of a population. However, a close examination reveals that genetic changes have also arisen in this time. Many of these changes do not appear accidental and do not directly cause disease. For this reason, some creationists have proposed that God “designed animals to be able to undergo genetic mutations which would enable them to adapt to a wide range of environmental challenges while minimizing risk.”

Isn’t That Evolution?

It is important to recognize that biologists use several distinct definitions for evolution that are often blurred together as if they are synonymous. Evolution is sometimes defined as “change in the genetic makeup (or gene frequency) of a population over time.” This has been observed; both creationists and evolutionists recognize this as important in building models to help us understand what likely happened in the past. A second definition of evolution involves the idea that all life descended from a common ancestor over millions of years through naturalistic processes. This has not been observed. In fact, it is in direct opposition to the testimony God (the eyewitness to creation) gives us in the Bible. The idea that all life has a common ancestor requires the assumption that the Bible’s history is false, and the assumption that changes which do occur could produce the variety of life we see today from a single-celled ancestor.

(...)

Diseases draw attention and research dollars, so the problems associated with transposons have been recognized before the benefits are understood (much like was true of bacteria). Many people still view these mobile genetic elements as “parasitic” or “selfish.” However, they are quite widespread in the genome of plants, animals, and man. If their insertion was always purely “random,” it seems they should more consistently cause problems in a complex system such as the genome. Therefore, it seems more logical to believe that transposons have purpose and were designed in a way to benefit their possessor.

The Bible Explains the Paradox

The biblical view explains an important paradox we see in the world around us. It anticipates the complexity that is constantly being uncovered by scientific research; God is an all-wise Creator and would be expected to use awesome design patterns and programming. It also explains the decay observed because mankind sinned and brought death into the world; the world is now in bondage to decay (Romans 8:20–21). This is an exciting time to be a creationist researcher, as the tremendous volume of scientific research is helping to provide answers to questions that have been asked for decades.

Ken Ham & Avery Foley #fundie

Ken Ham & Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

Atheists and evolutionists will often mock us for our rejection of biological evolution, but what really makes them hateful and emotional is when we reject millions and billions of years. You see, without the billions of years that secularists posit for the age of the universe and Earth, they can’t propose their belief that one kind of creature changed into a different kind. So when we reject long ages on biblical and scientific grounds, we really are striking at the heart of their religion—millions of years. In response, they get very emotional, angry, and often hateful. Secularists regularly call young-earth creationists anti-intellectual, anti-academic, anti-scientific, and other rhetoric involving ad hominem attacks. This really shows that long ages is the foundation for what they believe.

Back in 1954, American biochemist George Wald, a Nobel Prize recipient, stated this:

Time is in fact the hero of the plot . . . What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

Time (millions of years) is absolutely necessary for secularists to propose their biological evolutionary ideas. If the universe is only thousands of years old, then what do they do—believe the Bible? But people like Richard Dawkins are in rebellion against their Creator, so they cannot allow even a suggestion that the universe could be thousands of years old.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

When Is a Butterfly Not a Butterfly?

Anyone familiar with the ministry of Answers in Genesis will know that we’ve said many times before that what you believe about the past influences how you interpret the observational evidence we see in the present.

This concept is so important that it’s addressed in the first exhibit inside our Creation Museum. It explains why creationists and evolutionists can look at the same evidence about origins and reach completely different conclusions. So if you start with the belief of slow and gradual change over millions of years, that’s how you will interpret the evidence we can study in the present. But if you start with God’s Word, then you see and interpret the evidence through the lens of Scripture and what it teaches us about history. And you know what? What we see in the present confirms what we read in God’s Word, not man’s made-up evolutionary story about the past.

“Butterfly-Like” Fossil Found

Well, a recent, popular news item provides a vivid reminder of this important principle. This news piece was reporting on Smithsonian scientists’ study of some well-preserved insect fossils. Supposedly, according to the evolution story, these “large butterfly-like insects known as Kalligrammatid lacewings” have been extinct for 120 million years and lived during the so-called Mesozoic Era.

Now, by closely observing these fossils, Smithsonian scientists discovered that these insects had elongated, tubular mouthparts “strikingly similar” to the proboscis of modern butterflies. Based on the presence of carbon in this “food tube,” the scientists concluded that they feasted on “sugary pollen drops” and served as pollinators. These insects also had eyespot patterns that might have contained melanin (pigment) and possibly bright colors and patterns—just like modern butterflies. And they even have fine scales on their wings—just like butterflies do. In fact, these insects seem so similar to butterflies that the researchers concluded that all of these butterfly features evolved twice due to so-called “convergent evolution.” This means that the researchers believe that “two distinct groups of organisms evolve similar traits as they interact to similar features in their environments.”

Evolutionists Refuse to Admit a Butterfly Is a Butterfly

So if they have mouths, feeding tubes, wings, scales, and maybe even pigment just like butterflies, why not call them butterflies? Well, these researchers can’t do that because butterflies supposedly didn’t evolve for another 50 million years! And, according to the evolutionists’ worldview, the plants that butterflies feed from also hadn’t evolved yet. So instead of interpreting these fossils as butterfly fossils and questioning their presuppositions about the evolutionary timeline for butterflies, the scientists call them something entirely different and say that evolution just evolved the same body design and features in strikingly similar ways twice. The verse 2 Peter 3:5 really sums up these scientists: they are “willingly ignorant.”

During my debate with Bill Nye “The Science Guy” two years ago, he implied that there aren’t any fossils out of place in the evolutionary tree and said that, “If you can find just one fossil that has swum between the layers, bring it on! You could change the world!” Well, there are plenty of examples—like these butterfly fossils! But instead of recognizing that they’ve discovered a fossil totally out of order within the evolutionary timeline, the evolutionists either adjust the timeline to make it fit, or they create a whole new species or kind of animal to explain the fossil!

So, it’s not about the evidence—it’s about an interpretation of the evidence! Evolution is just a story, and evolutionists will change the story to fit whatever they find! By the way, God’s Word never changes!

It’s a Worldview Debate

The origins debate isn’t science vs. religion as so many people think it is. It’s one worldview vs. a different worldview; man’s word about the past vs. God’s Word about history. It’s all about an interpretation of the evidence and what you believe about the past, because your belief about the past influences how you interpret the evidence in the present. As Christians, we need to start with God’s Word as we interpret the past. God does not lie (Titus 1:2), and His Word will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8).

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Obama: Gay “Marriage” Over Religious Freedom

In a recent address to the LGBT community, US President Barack Obama made several startling claims that only highlight the continuing animosity and intolerance towards Bible-believing Christians. He said that “Freedom of religion isn't reason enough to deny any American their constitutional rights,” referring, of course, to gay “marriage,” and he added that “it's important to recognize that some parts of the country remain uncomfortable with same-sex marriage and that it will take time for them to catch up to the majority of Americans who support such unions,” according to CBS News.

The President went on to say, “We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions . . . . But we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn't grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.” This is the same President who, in 2013, addressed Planned Parenthood, a child-killing machine (i.e., by abortion, which is the murder of children; an estimated 55 million lives have been taken by abortion clinics since Roe v. Wade in 1973), and said “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

Frankly, President Obama cannot be talking about the same God of the Bible that I worship! Now, he has been known to selectively quote from the Bible when he gives some of his speeches, but he neglects so much of the Bible. For example, if he quoted Christ in Matthew 19, he would have to tell people that our Creator and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, taught clearly that true marriage was one man and one woman. And if President Obama quoted Romans 1, he would have to admit that homosexual behavior is sinful because of “vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting” (Romans 1:26–28).

So, according to the President of the United States, gay “marriage” is more important than religious freedom for Americans. Now, what the President—and many other leaders who support gay “marriage”—don’t seem to understand (or refuse to care about) is that those who are forced to condone gay “marriage” against their religious beliefs are having their First Amendment constitutional rights denied. If Christians aren’t allowed to act on their beliefs, such as their Bible-based belief that gay “marriage” is sinful, as God’s Word clearly states and as Jesus clearly teaches us, then what kind of religious freedom is that? It’s no freedom at all! In the end, all that happens is Christians giving up their constitutional rights—protected by the First Amendment—as the government tramples on their liberties.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

[Question: Did God use the same design for humans as for monkeys?]

Have you ever gone shopping and seen a whole bunch of really neat skateboards? You might know what type they are because of how they are painted or designed. They are similar because the same company made them. Well, when you look at God’s creation, you find many similarities because the same Maker created them.

God created all living things, and it makes sense that a lot of these share many similar characteristics or design. The same God, the same Designer, created both monkeys and humans and thus there are some similarities. But the differences are also important. Man is not an animal! Our Bible verse here says that man was made in God’s image—a monkey wasn’t.

Man is very different from a monkey. Man can think, he can appreciate and write music, and he can build airplanes and bridges. Monkeys can’t do this. Humans can have a relationship with their God, and we can spend eternity with Him if we believe His Word concerning salvation. We can ask forgiveness for our sins and believe in Jesus Christ, who took the punishment for our sins. Monkeys and animals cannot do that!

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Giant Siberian “Unicorn” Discovered

The media has been buzzing with news of a “giant Siberian unicorn” fossil that was recently discovered. This massive creature, similar to a rhino in appearance, was 6.5 feet tall, 15 feet long, and would’ve weighed up to 9,000 pounds. A giant horn protruded from its forehead. Illustrations depict it covered with hair. Supposedly this new fossil evidence, dated using a flawed dating method, puts this “unicorn” with humans 29,000 years ago.

Well, the fact that news outlets are calling this extinct creature a unicorn is certainly interesting! Atheists have long mocked older translations of the Bible for mentioning unicorns in several places. And they’ve also mocked the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter in regards to unicorns (even though we don’t feature unicorns at the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter hasn’t opened for them to know what exhibits it will feature!).

We’ve written articles and even a book chapter defending the biblical unicorn and pointing out that it could very well have been an Elasmotherium, a very large extinct variety of rhino—the same extinct creature that news outlets are calling a “Siberian unicorn”! It’s a real creature that lived in recent history—not a fanciful creature, like many think of today when they hear the word “unicorn” because of the fairy tales featuring unicorns.

Regardless of the exact identity of the biblical unicorn, which we likely will never know for sure, we know God’s Word is always accurate in what it says. Perhaps you can use this new finding as a way to start a gospel conversation. For example, ask your friends and family if they’ve seen the news article and then use it to segue into discussing the Bible. Perhaps discuss how real-life creatures, or even people, can be relegated to a mythical status after their lifetime even though there was nothing mythical about them. Mention that people often regard Jesus as a mythical figure, perhaps just a good teacher but certainly not the miracle worker described in Scripture. But assure them that God’s Word can be trusted when it talks about Jesus as the Savior who came to take away the sins of the world.

You can learn more about the biblical unicorn in The New Answers Book 3 chapter titled, “Unicorns in the Bible?

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Recently Bill Nye “the Science Guy” appeared in an interview in which he defended his participation in our evolution/creation debate last year. Many secularists were upset that Nye chose to debate me, claiming that debating creationists gives us some sense of credibility. Of course, most secularists ignore the fact that many of the greatest scientists of the past were creationists and many PhD scientists today are also biblical creationists (we have several PhD scientists on our full-time staff).

Actually, secularists these days don’t want public debates for a number of reasons, one being they don’t want the public to hear the information they have by and large successfully censored (in the public school system and much of the media). Evolutionists know that when creationists present the true nature of the creation/evolution debate (as I did during the debate with Bill Nye), many people will understand that molecules-to-man evolution is a belief—a religion. The secularists don’t want the public to understand that the religion of atheism is being forced on millions of school students and the culture as a whole.

Unknown author #fundie

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.

Cindy Richmond #fundie

Cindy Richmond #fundie answersingenesis.org

[Winner of the "Easier is always better"-award]

In my new studies into the question of origins, I came across so many things that were confusing to the evolutionary scientists, such as “older” aged rock layers being on top of the “younger” layers. They couldn’t explain it easily, but creationist research could.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

[At the National Education Association teachers' convention in Florida. Emphasis in original.]

But what caused the biggest stir—and what had NEA officials making unreasonable demands on us—was AiG’s small <a href=http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/00-1-025>“gay marriage” booklet</a>. The NEA leadership demanded that the AiG booklet be moved to a back table. Apparently, some people were “offended by it.” Here’s how Tony Ramsek of our staff—who led our effort—explained it to me:

We received a press release from the American Family Association about a new NEA proposal that would “promote homosexual marriage in public schools.” Because of this new controversial proposal, AiG determined to actively engage this battle.

An official from the NEA leadership stopped by our booth. He requested/demanded that we move those gay marriage booklets to the back of our tables so they wouldn’t be in plain view. If we didn’t, he would take it to the next level—a not-so-veiled threat.

If I was to acquiesce to the humanists’ demands this time, what would be next? Surely sooner or later, someone would find our banners—or our creation message—to be offensive. If we backed down from preaching the whole counsel of God in this instance, it would not stop there.

What we were doing did not go against the NEA by-laws (we checked). So we decided to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

An NEA official came by again. This man was noticeably nervous, and repeated the request/demand that we move the gay marriage booklets to the back … or else face the consequences. With gentleness, I told him that we would not—and showed him the NEA by-laws.

I mentioned to this gentleman that we felt like the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks being asked to move to the back of an Alabama bus. I told him, “We will not go to the back of the bus. We will not move our booklets to the back.” And praise the Lord, we never heard back from them again.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Will There Be a National Darwin Day?

Will Darwin Day be honored as a national holiday here in America? Well, a resolution was reintroduced to the US House of Representatives recently to recognize Charles Darwin’s birthday (February 12, 2016) as a national holiday because of many absurd reasons. There has since been an additional resolution from a Democratic Senator that would show Congressional support for the Darwin Day distinction.

Now, some of the reasons listed nationally for celebrating Darwin, who of course was not an American, include the following:

•Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection, together with the monumental amount of scientific evidence he compiled to support it, provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

•It has been the human curiosity and ingenuity exemplified by Darwin that has promoted new scientific discoveries that have helped humanity solve many problems and improve living conditions.

•The teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the United States education systems.

•Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earth’s peoples.

These are terrible reasons to make Darwin Day a national holiday. Putting aside the fact that Darwin was not an American, Darwinian evolution has no confirmation in observational science. What we see in the world is consistent with God’s Word, not evolutionary ideas about the past, and much of what we observe actually contradicts evolutionary ideas.

Darwin isn’t a great example of “human curiosity and ingenuity”—he was compelled to come up with a way to explain life without God because he rejected God. Although AiG doesn’t lobby for it because creation would probably be poorly represented by teachers, mandating that creation be taught alongside evolution doesn’t compromise “scientific and academic integrity”—if done properly, it promotes critical thinking and inspires a desire to learn more about God’s creation.

And Darwin isn’t a “worthy symbol” of the promotion of “a common bond among all of Earth’s peoples.” He was racist and his ideas were racist! Choosing Darwin as the symbol of “scientific advancement” instead of many more worthy and less controversial figures like Newton, Mendel, or Pasteur seems to be nothing more than an attempt to push the anti-God religion of secularism on the nearly half of Americans who believe in a Creator.

Proposed Holiday Shows How Anti-God Our Society Has Become

This proposed new holiday only emphasizes how anti-God our society has become. Christian holidays like Christmas or Easter have been secularized to the point where Nativity scenes and crosses are being taken out of public places, yet a secular figure whose ideas on the origin of life are a major tenet of the secular religion of humanism can be publicly applauded and celebrated. It’s not really Darwin who’s being celebrated on Darwin Day, it’s an anti-God religion and its foundation of evolution and millions of years that’s being celebrated. Actually, the intolerant secularists (intolerant of Christianity in particular) are now wanting more and more to impose their anti-God religion on the culture.

On the home page of the International Darwin Day website (a website that promotes the celebration of Darwin around the world) scrolls several phrases: “Let’s celebrate intellectual bravery . . . perpetual curiosity . . . hunger for truth . . . Let’s celebrate Darwin Day.” It should be more like “let’s celebrate man’s fallible ideas being trusted over God’s infallible Word!” This is really a worship of man, a worship of the god of self.

Darwin Day is a day that celebrates the legacy of a man who elevated his own fallible ideas over God’s Word. Darwin took the things he observed—natural selection and adaptation—and leapt to the conclusion that these small, observable changes within a kind could lead to huge, unobserved (and still unobserved!) changes between kinds. But his ideas still have no observational corroboration. What we see in nature is kinds that reproduce according to their kinds with only limited amounts of variation within the kind. We do see common designs in all of creation but that is explained by a common Designer, not common descent. This is consistent with God’s Word, not Darwin’s imaginations about the past.

This February 12, I encourage you to celebrate the truth of God’s unchanging Word. Use “Darwin Day” as a springboard for conversations with your friends and family about the flaws of evolution and show them how observational science confirms God’s Word from the beginning. And then challenge people that the history in the Bible—starting with Genesis—is true, and that’s why the gospel based in that history is true.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Peter Galling #fundie

Peter Galling #fundie answersingenesis.org

If Nasa has indeed found (more) ice on Mars, it would neither be a major surprise nor a matter of worry for young-earth creationists. After all, we’ve known for a long time that there is plenty of ice on Mars (in the polar ice caps) and that a permafrost layer probably extends considerably beyond the ice caps.

In fact, this particular icy discovery should cause a cold feeling for evolutionists, who would much prefer to find liquid water but instead have found only this scant evidence of subsurface ice. And of course, the very idea that liquid or frozen water on Mars is a “big thing” comes straight from the evolutionary faith that where there’s water, life will follow. In fact, that’s the entire premise of today’s Martian landers.
[Crazy assertion in 3..2...1...]
The ice on Mars may possibly be, in part, a frozen remnant of a global Mars flood, which has been theorized by some creationists to have occurred near the same time as Noah’s flood—perhaps even as an extension of it. Even today, the Martian ice caps contain enough water to cover the entire Martian surface if the ice were to melt.

Ken Ham #fundie

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)
Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson #fundie

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson #fundie answersingenesis.org

Because we start from the right foundation, we’re going to get the right answer. Now, one of the things evolutionists commonly challenge us with is, “Well, you’re not scientists. You don’t make testable predictions. You just say ‘God did it, that’s the end of it.” This is a stereotype, a straw man, and it’s not true. For example, the most important question of the evolutionary model is, “How’s evolution supposed to work?” The answer: mutations. Now, young-earth creationists can predict the mutation rate for whatever DNA sequence you want better than the evolutionists can. So, the irony of this, if there’s ever a topic where the evolutionists should excel, that one topic is actually where the creationists are the strongest in terms of the biological model.

Ken Ham #fundie

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.

Paul F. Taylor #fundie

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.

Simon Turpin #fundie

Simon Turpin #fundie answersingenesis.org

Three Reasons Jesus Refutes Theistic Evolution

Sadly, much of the church in the United Kingdom has succumbed to the teaching of evolution and millions of years. This has only been to the detriment of the church. There are many biblical reasons to reject theistic evolution, but in considering the person of Jesus, there are three specific arguments that refute this belief.

1. His Goodness
At the end of the six days of creation, God declares his creation to be “very good” (Genesis 1:31). The goodness of God’s completed creation is a reflection of His nature (1 Chronicles 16:34; Psalm 34:8, 106:1) since it is He alone who is good (Luke 18:19).

In the New Testament we read that the Creator and Savior of the world became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1–3, 14). In Acts 10:38, Peter said that Jesus, our Creator, “went about doing good.” Some of the good things Jesus did included feeding the hungry (Mark 6:33–44), healing diseases (Matthew 8–9), giving sight to the blind (John 9:1–8), stopping natural disasters (Mark 4:39), and raising the dead (John 11:43–44). The healing ministry of Jesus was a confrontation of evil, suffering, and death. However for those Christians who believe God used evolution, the problem here is that evil, suffering, and death are integral parts of evolution. Why then would Jesus have done all those things if, as the Creator, He knew them to be part of the “very good” creation which He created?

2. His Miracles
The Bible tells us that Jesus’ first miracle was to turn water into wine at the wedding in Cana in Galilee (John 2:1–11). While this was the first of His earthly miracles, His first actual miracle was the creation of the world (John 1:1–3). Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus created the world by His spoken word (Psalm 33:6; John 1:1–3; Hebrews 11:3) and reveals how that creation took place: “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:9). The New Testament bears witness to this through the instantaneous nature of His miracles in the gospels (e.g., Matthew 8:5–13; Mark 10:52; Luke 18:42–43). So when Jesus, the Word, spoke the divine command, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), we have very good reasons to conclude that it did not take millions of years for it to come into existence.

Theistic evolutionists inconsistently reject the supernatural creation of the world whilst accepting the reality of the virgin birth, the miracles, and the Resurrection of Christ, which are equally at odds with the truth claims of the secular scientific majority. This inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

3. His Death
Christians need to consider what Jesus’ death achieved if Darwinian evolution is true and physical death and suffering were already present in an evolving world. Those who believe that God created by evolutionary processes believe in a world where there were death, destruction, and catastrophe before Adam’s disobedience. This is faith in a Creator, Christ, who “creates” by using evolutionary processes, which is essentially faith in a “god” who said He created all things “very good” when He really used eons of death and struggle. If this is the case, then how can He be trusted to make a new and good creation (Revelation 21:1) since His definition of “good” may well mean an eternity of death and struggle?

Scripture speaks about a future restoration of Creation from the Curse brought on it through Adam’s rebellion (Romans 8:19–25). This restoration and reconciliation of all things comes about because of Jesus’ work on the Cross (Colossians 1:15–20). Theistic evolutionists must be able to explain what creation will be restored to. Will it be restored to a state of death and suffering?

By replacing or synthesising Genesis 1–3 with the philosophy of evolution and millions of years, many in the church have failed to understand how the person and nature of their Creator, the Lord Jesus, refute their own teaching.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Lessons from Back to the Future

Today, October 21, 2015, is the day that Marty McFly, the hero of the popular 1989 movie Back to the Future Part II, arrives on after he travels to the future. Although we don’t yet have flying, time-traveling DeLoreans, or self-adjusting and drying clothes, we don’t know if the Chicago Cubs will win baseball’s World Series this month, and our hoverboards today can barely get off the ground, we at AiG do have a great time-traveling adventure in store for you.

In our online store we have a movie that features time travel but teaches an important lesson. This film, called Time Changer[/i], is set in 1890 and features a Bible professor looking to receive unanimous endorsement from the board for a new book he wrote. But one board member won’t endorse it because he believes the views in the book are dangerous for future generations. He then sends Carlisle into the 21st century to see where his ideas will lead. This movie is described as a humorous “conversation starter” on biblical authority and why it is so important that we stand on the authority of God’s Word without compromise. You can learn more about this faith-affirming movie.

Now, many secularists will argue against biblical creation by saying that we have a “time travel” problem. The supposed problem goes like this: there are some galaxies that are so far away it would take light from their stars billions of years to reach Earth. Now, they say, since we can see them, their light has already arrived here, and so the Earth can’t be only thousands of years old, it must be billions. But, creation astronomers and astrophysicists have researched this question and have posed several ways to explain it in a biblical worldview. You can read more about proposed solutions and assumptions inherent in the argument.

Actually, this is a poor argument to use for those who hold to the big bang to use because it’s self-refuting—they have a similar problem! You see, in the big bang model light has to travel farther than is possible in even 14 billion years. You see, according to the big bang model, at the beginning the universe would develop different temperatures in different places in the universe. But everywhere we measure, the universe has the same temperature—even in the most distant galaxies. In order for all of the different places of the universe to reach a uniform temperature, light had to be exchanged from one place to another. But, even in the supposed 14 billion years that those who hold to the big bang believe in, there hasn’t been enough time for light to travel from one side of the universe to the other. So for those who hold to the big bang to argue that biblical creation is wrong because of this “time travel” problem, they are really “shooting themselves in the foot” because their argument is self-refuting!

Although we can’t time travel like Marty McFly, we do know Someone who created everything and is outside of time and even created time, as stated in Genesis 1:1. Since we have the testimony of the Creator God of the universe, which is the written account of the history of the world, we can be confident that the things it says are true. His Word tells us how everything came to be, how sin entered into the world, and how Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross takes away the penalty of that sin. It even tells us of the future glory of timeless heaven, for those who are Christians.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Ken Ham #fundie

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.

Troy Lacey and Ken Ham #fundie

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?

AIG #fundie

AIG #fundie answersingenesis.org

Although some evolutionists claim that the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) is a sort of Trojan horse for creationism to get into schools, those in the IDM are not necessarily even Christian, let alone creationists.

Creationism begins with the belief that the Bible is God’s infallible Word to us. The Bible provides the framework by which we understand the world. Because the Bible teaches that there is a Creator and that the earth is young, creationists base all our research on this foundation.

Conversely, the IDM holds that certain aspects of living things and the universe can best be explained by being the work of an intelligent designer. The identity of this creator and whether or not the Bible is true are non-factors. While creationists may agree with some aspects of intelligent design theory, those who do conflate IDM with creationism likely do not understand either.

Dr. Georgia Purdom #fundie

Dr. Georgia Purdom #fundie answersingenesis.org

Some people have wrongly assumed that Matthew and Luke (the author of Acts) are contradictory in their account of Judas’ death. Since the Bible is inerrant Judas cannot have died by hanging and died by falling and bursting open. Rather they are two different viewpoints of the same event. For example, if I saw a car hit a pedestrian, I might simply say that the pedestrian died because they were hit by the car. The coroner who came on the scene later but did not actually see the accident might give a graphic description of the injuries to the pedestrian. Both the coroner and I are describing the same event just different aspects of it.
Matthew tells us that Judas died by hanging (death is inferred from the passage). Luke, being a doctor, gives us a graphic description of what occurred following the hanging. The reason for ordering the events as such is twofold. First, if someone has fallen and their internal organs spilled out they would die and so could not subsequently die from hanging. Secondly, even when people suffer bad falls they do not usually burst open and have their internal organs spill out. The skin is very tough and even when cut in the abdominal area their internals do not usually spill out. Thus, it is unlikely that Judas could die in this manner merely from falling.
Gruesome as it is, Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.
There is no contradiction surrounding Judas’ death; rather, merely two descriptions given by two different authors of the same event.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

There is Hope for Atheists!

When I read some of the atheist blogs, Facebook posts, and news articles that display a sheer hatred against Christians (really, it’s a hatred against God), it can seem, humanly speaking, hopeless to try to reach these secularists with the truth of God’s Word and the salvation message it presents.

And yet, we can be encouraged to read of the incredible conversion of Saul (who severely persecuted Christians) in Acts 9 and realize that God’s Word can penetrate even the most hardened heart. Indeed: “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

As I read many of the comments by atheists (blasphemous and vitriolic as some of them are), I also understand that they have been indoctrinated in evolutionary ideas. Most of them have probably never really heard a clear, logical defense of the Christian faith that would answer many of their skeptical questions. It’s important to remember that God’s Word commands us to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

At the same time, it’s vital that we never divorce any arguments/defense we could present to atheists from the powerful Word of God: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).

When I read some of the atheist blogs, Facebook posts, and news articles that display a sheer hatred against Christians (really, it’s a hatred against God), it can seem, humanly speaking, hopeless to try to reach these secularists with the truth of God’s Word and the salvation message it presents.

And yet, we can be encouraged to read of the incredible conversion of Saul (who severely persecuted Christians) in Acts 9 and realize that God’s Word can penetrate even the most hardened heart. Indeed: “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

As I read many of the comments by atheists (blasphemous and vitriolic as some of them are), I also understand that they have been indoctrinated in evolutionary ideas. Most of them have probably never really heard a clear, logical defense of the Christian faith that would answer many of their skeptical questions. It’s important to remember that God’s Word commands us to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

At the same time, it’s vital that we never divorce any arguments/defense we could present to atheists from the powerful Word of God: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).

WE DO OUR BEST TO DEFEND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH USING APOLOGETICS AGAINST THE SECULAR ATTACKS OF OUR DAY.
At Answers in Genesis, through our resources, conferences, and other outreaches, we do our best to defend the Christian faith using apologetics against the secular attacks of our day. But in doing so, we need to also point people to the truth of God’s Word and challenge them concerning the saving gospel. We use apologetics to answer questions and direct people to God’s Word and its message of salvation.

There’s no greater thrill in this ministry than to hear how God has used what has been taught by AiG to touch someone’s life—for eternity. Last week, I was introduced to one of our new volunteers, Donna, who is helping sew some of the costumes for the figures that will be placed inside our full-size Ark. She had responded to my Facebook post asking for seamstresses.

I discovered that she became a Christian in 1993 after attending one of my seminars (called “Back to Genesis” with the Institute for Creation Research ministry) at Cedarville University in Ohio. The Bible-upholding seminar was such an eye-opener to her about the reliability of the Bible that she became a Christian.

We asked if she would share her testimony.

"Ken:

The Lord opened up this atheistic evolutionist’s eyes decades ago, through exposure to Ken’s ministry.

I was a die-hard evolutionist, completely convinced that the fossil finds in Olduvai Gorge supported the “evidence” that we evolved from less-complicated, early hominid creatures, like the so-called “Lucy".

To keep a long story short: I attended a Creation Seminar at Cedarville College [now Cedarville University], sat in rapt attention as Ken Ham told me “the rest of the story,” and I realized that all of the fossil finds I believed supported evolution were, in all cases, misinterpreted. I was blown away! So, learning the truth about evolution preceded my realizing that God was real (after all!) and that the Bible was His Word. I became a creationist before I became a believer in Christ.

I was raised and educated Roman Catholic. My parents took all seven of us to church every Sunday. And for all that religiosity, we never spoke of Jesus at home.

After twelve years of Catholic schools, and being taught that Noah's Ark, for example, was just an allegorical way to relay the story that “if you come on board with belief in God, he'll keep you through the storm,” that there probably was no actual Noah's Ark, and probably no actual Adam and Eve, it was easy to throw out the Bible as any believable “Word of God.”

I became a non-Christian. I used to say, “How can I believe a book that's been copied over and over and over, translated in so many different versions, when it probably doesn't even look like the original, like a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy?” It was easy to walk away from what little faith I'd been taught.

But then being exposed to creation science ministries, I had to look honestly at what I'd come to believe about God. I can't name a specific date that I came to saving knowledge of what Christ had done for me—it was more of a season. I was that thick headed. It took a while for it all to unfold.

Today, I am feasting on apologetics, Christian music, and the inerrant Word of God. I never thought the Bible could make so much sense. Christ has loved and protected me through my years of doubt, even though I never deserved it. I know where I came from, and I know exactly where I’m going. I am free of the fears and superstitions of religion, because I have a deep, personal relationship with the most awesome Creator of the Universe!

By the way, my twin daughters are both graduates of Cedarville, and one is a pastor's wife!

I am so honored to be doing any little thing to make the presentation at the Ark Encounter come alive, and look forward to many more days helping with the sewing effort."


Thank you, Donna. What a wonderful account!
We were able to find some information on the 1993 seminar that she attended at Cedarville University; Cedarville is a university that has a close affiliation with AiG today. See a photo of me (with dark hair) on page 4 of Torch, summer 1993.

In explaining how we conduct apologetics evangelism at AiG, I like to use the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11). When Jesus came to the tomb of Lazarus, He told people to roll the stone away. Now, Jesus could have moved the stone with one command—but what people could do for themselves, He asked them to do. Then what people couldn’t do, He did with a command—His Word. He raised Lazarus from the dead.

At AiG, we know that non-Christians are really walking dead people “who were dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). Only God’s Word can raise the dead. So when we are witnessing to “dead” people, we do the best we can to give answers (1 Peter 3:15) to defend the faith, and in so doing, point them to the Word of God that saves! God is the One who opens people’s hearts (including atheists) and “who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).

Yes, God’s Word reaches even the most hardened heart. There is hope for every atheist, for the Lord “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). And “blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3).

If the Lord has used AiG, including our Creation Museum, in your life to bring you to salvation, would you please let me know? Thank you.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Sadly, Steve Irwin wasn’t a creationist. He mentioned evolution and the concept of millions of years many times in his television programs. For example, he once told Larry King on CNN’s Larry King Live cable program that crocodiles had been around for 200 million years, and if you weren’t careful they would kill you"
[...]
What does the death of Steve Irwin mean for us? It’s a reminder that we all need to repent of our sin so that we can be saved for eternity—because we all face death. As a witnessing opportunity at this time, point more of your friends/relatives to AiG’s website for answers to this important question—one that affects everyone’s eternity.

[Read the whole thing only if you've already lost your faith in humanity]

Avery Foley #fundie

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.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Now gender distinction for humans is so important that in the very first chapter of the Bible, which is foundational to the whole Bible, God emphasizes this gender distinction:

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)

Jesus, the Son of God, our Creator, as the God-man, made this emphatic statement:

But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female. (Mark 10:6)

And again in Matthew 19:4, Jesus, in explaining the meaning of marriage, emphasized the following:

Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female . . . ? (Matthew 19:4)

And I love how He stated, “have you not read…?” I believe we could paraphrase this verse as, “Haven’t you people read the book of Genesis, that when I created humans, that I made them male and female?” (Matthew 19:4)

God has clearly revealed to us in His Word that gender is not something we can choose to discard. When God created mankind, He made them male and female (Genesis 1:27). It’s only concerning our spiritual state in Christ where there is no male or female distinction, as both are equally made in God’s image and equally valuable in His sight (Galatians 3:28).

Answers in Genesis #fundie

Answers in Genesis #fundie answersingenesis.org

We often hear the word prehistoric used to describe dinosaurs or the woolly mammoths and other Ice Age creatures. It means that they existed before written history.

Could that be? What does the Bible tell us? God’s Word gives us a written record of earth history from the very beginning (Genesis 1:1). It describes how God created all things, including every kind of dinosaur and other creature, during the first six days of history, only 6,000 years ago.

What about cavemen? Surely they were prehistoric. Not really! Today we find evidence that some people lived in caves. But these were descendants of Noah. They lived in caves to protect themselves and their families from the weather and animals. They were very smart, like Noah!

The Bible says the first two people were Adam and Eve. They were created just 6,000 years ago with dinosaurs and all other land animals. All people are part of Adam's family.

Nothing is prehistoric!

Steve Ham #fundie

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

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!

Paul F. Taylor #fundie

Paul F. Taylor #fundie answersingenesis.org

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.
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.

Stacia McKeever #fundie

Stacia McKeever #fundie answersingenesis.org

Take, for example, the situation my four-year-old friend Sarah found herself in. According to Sarah, “My friend told me that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but I told her that wasn’t true.” Even at four years old, Sarah was able to pick up on a false view because her parents had instilled in her the difference between what’s wrong and what’s right.

...

Just as we use the Bible to teach our children morality, so we need to use the Bible to teach our children history by tearing down for them the wrong view of history and building up the right (biblical) view of history.

Jason Lisle, Ph D. #fundie

Jason Lisle, Ph D. #fundie answersingenesis.org

[in a previous paragraph, he mentions how all natural explanations fail]:

Curiously, the magi seem to have been the only ones who saw the star—or at least the only ones who understood its meaning. Israel’s King Herod had to ask the magi when the star had appeared (Matthew 2:7). If the magi
alone saw the star, this further supports the notion that the star of Bethlehem was a supernatural manifestation from God rather than a common star, which would have been visible to all.

[If the magi alone saw the star, maybe it means the story was sodding made up??]

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The article goes on to state,

Sexually, Cyrus said she is “down with” anything. She views her sexuality and even her gender identity as fluid. “I am literally open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn’t involve an animal and everyone is of age. Everything that’s legal, I’m down with. Yo, I’m down with any adult—anyone over the age of 18 who is down to love me,” she said. “I don’t relate to being boy or girl, and I don’t have to have my partner relate to boy or girl.”

Question for her: Why not involve an animal? On what basis does she decide that? Besides, if there’s no God and she’s just a result of evolution, then she is merely an animal anyway. And those she interacts with sexually are just animals—so why not any animals? In other words, she has decided to draw a line for some reason—but what reason? It’s actually because in her heart she knows God exists (Romans 1), she knows she is different from the animals as she is made in God’s image (Genesis 1)—and she has a conscience (as seared as it is because of her sinful rebellion) because the law is written on our hearts (Romans 2).

Dr. Andrew Fabich #fundie

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.’”

Ken Ham #fundie

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!"

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

These Attacks Confirm God’s Word

The fact that people like Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins and atheist groups in the USA like the ACLU, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation are so consumed with fighting against biblical Christianity, actually confirms the truth of God’s Word.

In Romans 1 we read that God has given man the ability to know that He exists, so that if anyone rejects the God of the Bible, they are without excuse: “What may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19–20).

God’s Word also makes it clear that the reason even atheists use words like right and wrong and good and bad is because God has given man a conscience—God’s law written on our hearts: “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law . . . show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (Romans 2:14–15).

In Genesis 3:5 we read that the temptation given to Adam and Eve was that they could “be like God.” Because we succumbed to this temptation in Adam (in Adam we sinned), we want to be our own god! Our fallen nature doesn’t want to submit to the God who created us and owns us; we want to make our own rules! Romans 1 also explains that because of man’s rebellious heart, fallen unregenerate man will “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

Really then, when Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, and others so aggressively oppose biblical Christianity, what they are doing is this. They are covering their ears and closing their eyes and saying, “I refuse to submit to the God who created me. I refuse to acknowledge that God is the creator. I refuse to accept that I’m a sinner in need of salvation. I want to write my own rules! Therefore I must oppose anything that pricks my conscience and aggressively suppress the truth to justify my rebellion.”

I was once speaking with an atheist when he said to me, “If there is a God, then why doesn’t He come and show Himself to us?” I replied, “He did, and they nailed Him to a cross.” And of course I went on to talk about Jesus as the God-man, His death and Resurrection, and the gift of salvation that He offers.

In 2 Peter 3:5, we are told that those who scoff about God as creator, the historical Flood, and coming judgment by fire are “willingly ignorant.” This means it is a deliberate action on their part not to believe, because they don’t want to believe. They close their eyes and cover their ears, refusing to believe the truth and actively suppressing it.

So why do these who so aggressively oppose Christianity care? They care because they are desperately trying to justify their rebellion against the truth. They don’t want to admit that they are sinners in need of salvation and thus need to submit to the God who created them and owns them.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Real Mythbusters

An article on Cincinnati.com (AiG and the Creation Museum are located near Cincinnati) this week discussed the visit by the television series stars Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman of Mythbusters.

The article commenced by discussing the Creation Museum:

The topic of Greater Cincinnati’s very own Creation Museum probably won’t come up during the local stop of “MythBusters,” because, as Adam Savage puts it, it’s not even wrong.

Savage explains this later in an interview with a reporter stating,

Q: Are you going to visit the Creation Museum while you’re in town?

A: Ah! I haven’t considered it, but holy [vulgar word], what an idea. I had forgotten it was there, but my goodness, I don’t think I could pass that up.

Q: Do you have a conflicted feeling about contributing money to the museum by paying the price of admission?

A: The conflicted feeling I have is, there is a scientific term which I really like that is “not even wrong,” and these are ideas that are so far off the mark they’re not even worth discussing. I’m worried about participating or giving oxygen to ideas that are not even wrong lest I lend them a credibility as something that’s debatable.

Q: So if you were to go to the museum, you wouldn’t talk about the experience on stage, because that would be giving it oxygen, as you say.

A: My particular bailiwick isn’t to be a provocateur in that regard. Again, part of it is not giving oxygen to ideas that I don’t think are very debatable. I have empathy for people. And I don’t feel like going up on stage and telling some members of the audience, “By the way, I think you’re idiots.” I tend to stay away from that sort of polemicism. At the same time, if I’m asked, I’ll respond to questions directly. I’ve never had a problem doing that on stage.

Q: What would the reason be for going to the museum, if it’s not for getting material for the stage show?

A: For me it’s sort of like slowing down and looking at the car accident.

Well, I’ve got news for Adam Savage: the real myth busters are found at the Creation Museum. If Savage came to the Creation Museum, he would meet some academics and scientists who powerfully bust the myth of molecules-to-man evolution:

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, PhD in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University, who was actively involved in adult stem cell research and has been published in several peer-reviewed secular journals in this field.

Dr. Andrew Snelling, PhD in geology from the University of Sydney, who was a researcher and editor on the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) project from 1997–2007, and has published many articles in various peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Dr. Georgia Purdom, PhD in molecular genetics from Ohio State University, who was a biology professor at Mount Vernon Nazarene University, has published in several peer-reviewed journals, and is co-founder of the Microbe Forum.

Dr. David Menton, PhD in cell biology from Brown University, who was tenured at Washington University, served as the histology consultant for five editions of Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, and was a guest lecturer in histology at Stanford University Medical School.

Dr. Tommy Mitchell, who earned his MD from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, has been a medical doctor since 1987, and is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians.

Dr. Terry Mortenson, PhD in the history of geology from Coventry University in England and MDiv in systematic theology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois, has served as seminary and research staff for Campus Crusade for Christ (CRU) teaching across Europe, and is still an active member of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, who earned an MD from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, is a retired obstetrician who earned board certification and fellowship in the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and now writes extensively for AiG.

Dr. Danny Faulkner, PhD in astronomy from Indiana University, was a professor at the University of South Carolina Lancaster for 26 years, is a member of the Creation Research Society, operates the observatory and planetarium at the Creation Museum, and has written hundreds of papers in astronomy and astrophysics journals.

I challenge Adam Savage to make the short drive from Cincinnati and meet some true myth busters at the Creation Museum and see how his beliefs in evolution stand up against real observational science. In meeting with these academics and scientists, and touring our world-class museum with its stunning science exhibits, he will discover that evolution is a myth and gets busted for what it is—and he will learn the truth about the God who created him, that he has a sin nature, and is in need of salvation. Our burden is to reach Adam Savage with the saving message of the gospel and help him understand that observational science confirms that the Bible is the true history book of the universe.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

In response to “Charles Darwin Day” in Delaware, Ken Ham, CEO of Answers in Genesis, has declared Darwin Was Wrong Day. Ken responded with the following:

Secularists are becoming increasingly aggressive and intolerant in promoting their anti-God philosophy. Evolutionary ideas provide the foundation for this worldview because they seemingly allow mankind the ability to explain the existence of life and the universe without God. As Christians, we need to be bold in proclaiming the truth of God’s Word to a hurting (groaning, Romans 8:22) world. This year, on February 12, instead of celebrating Darwin’s anti-God religion, we can take this opportunity to show the world that Darwin’s ideas about our supposed evolutionary origins were wrong, and that God’s Word is true, from the very beginning. Let’s make February 12 Darwin Was Wrong Day and point people to the truth of God’s Word.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye Tells Women What to Do!

In a new [i]Big Think[/i] video, Bill Nye, TV’s “the Science Guy,” states, “You can’t tell somebody what to do . . . ” and then proceeds to tell us all what to do. Later on in the short video defending abortion, he states that he wants to “encourage you to not tell women what to do,” but through the whole video clip he is telling women what to do—that they should abort (murder, really) a baby if they want to.

It appears that Bill Nye, ever since his debate with me at the Creation Museum last year and the enormous viewership it received, is increasingly being asked now to give his opinion on other topics regardless of his qualifications to speak to such issues. Now in this video where Bill Nye is urging people not to stop the work of abortion clinics, he attacks the Bible! He just couldn’t help himself as he has to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” as Romans 1 states such people do, and justify his own rebellion against God. And of course, in the Bill Nye debate over a year ago, I showed clearly that the debate between Bill Nye and me was really a clash of worldviews based on our different starting points—just as the abortion battle is a clash of the same two worldviews. It’s a battle over God’s Word and man’s word—the two ultimate religions that have fueled a battle that has been raging around us since the events of Genesis 3 when Adam and Eve trusted man’s word instead of God’s Word.

In this video, Bill Nye attacks the Bible because his starting point is that man determines his own worldview—that there is no God who owns us. Then using his religion, his starting point that all life is the result of natural processes, and therefore one’s worldview is moral relativism, he proceeds to plead (yes, plead) that women be allowed to abort their babies.

Now Bill Nye also tells us that saying we should not abort (murder) babies is “bad science.” And then he proceeds to discuss the sperm and the egg and what we’ve been able to understand from what is obviously observational science. As he did in the debate, he confuses beliefs with what one can observe. He tries to make out that discussing moral issues (like abortion) is on the same level as observational science that builds our technology. What a load of nonsense. This is why I spent time in the Bill Nye debate explaining the difference between historical science (beliefs) and observational science (based on the repeatable test to build technology, and so on).

In this video, he states to those who oppose abortion, “I understand that you have deeply held beliefs.” Yes, we do! We admit that! We do believe the Bible is the Word of God and that God created us and owns us! We do acknowledge it is God who sets the rules and determines right and wrong! And we do admit that humans are made in God’s image, and murdering one made in God’s image is sin!

But Bill Nye—you too have “deeply held beliefs.” Admit it! You wouldn’t admit it at the debate and you won’t acknowledge it now! You need to admit you have a religion called humanism—that you believe everything happened by natural processes and man determines right and wrong. You need to admit that your “deeply held beliefs” determine your worldview which is why you are telling women what to do—they should abort (murder) a baby if they want to!

Bill, like all those who have rebelled against their Creator, I urge you:

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

You can watch the Nye/Ham debate on YouTube, own a copy of the debate on DVD, or you could get the boxed set.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Tim Chaffey #fundie

Tim Chaffey #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Heart of Unbelief

Some may wonder how a proof could be called infallible when so many people refuse to believe it. In the case of the risen Jesus, the problem was not with the evidence. After all, He was standing in front of them and could be touched and heard.8 Even today, the problem is not with the infallible proof of Scripture, nor is there a problem with the evidence from history or archaeology. The main problem is with humanity’s stubbornly rebellious heart. Jesus also spoke to this issue when talking about the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31). The rich man in Hades pleaded with Abraham in glory to send Lazarus back from the dead to warn the rich man’s brothers about the torments that awaited them if they didn’t repent. He claimed that “if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent” (v. 30). Abraham’s response alludes to Christ’s Resurrection and illustrates the stubbornness of the sinner’s heart: “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead” (v. 31).

This willful rejection of the truth is well illustrated by a series of quotations from atheist philosopher Michael Martin concerning the evidence for Christ’s Resurrection.

“It is not inconceivable that on very rare occasions someone being restored to life has no natural or supernatural cause”; “I admit that some events could occur without any cause”; “[E]ven if the resurrection of Jesus was justified by the evidence, it would not support the belief that the Christian God exists and that Jesus is the Son of God.”9

In an effort to escape the implications of the Resurrection, Martin is willing to reject one of the fundamental principles of scientific methodology: cause and effect. Instead of bowing the knee to His Creator, Martin would rather believe in a causeless effect by which, out of all the people who have ever lived, the one who just happened to come back to life for no reason at all was Jesus, the Man who had fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies, lived a sinless life, performed countless miracles, and predicted His own Resurrection (Matthew 20:18–19). This is special pleading at its worst.

Martin’s statement provides a great example of how a person usually interprets the data according to his worldview. As an atheist, Martin is prepared to believe just about anything on this matter except that God raised Jesus from the dead. When a person desires to remain in his skepticism, he will develop excuses to disbelieve the obvious. Although the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was proven by “many infallible proofs” and has been recorded in God’s Word, atheists like Michael Martin will continue to reject the free gift of God’s grace and cling to their irrational humanistic worldview.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye is Releasing a New Religious Book

Bill Nye “the Science Guy” has a book releasing soon called Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World, and I wonder if my name is mentioned in the book somewhere as one of those supposed “anti-science, climate change deniers” he talks about. I just have to shake my head. Really, I think the title of the book should be, It’s Stoppable: The Harnessing of the Religion of Naturalism That’s Changing the World. The more you read what Bill Nye is saying, the more you should realize he is on a mission to brainwash generations of kids in the religion of naturalism—which in reality is atheism.

While his last book, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, focused on molecules-to-man evolution (you can read our review of this book), this upcoming release focuses on the topic of climate change. The publisher’s description reads,

With a scientist's thirst for knowledge and an engineer's vision of what can be, Bill Nye sees today's environmental issues not as insurmountable, depressing problems but as chances for our society to rise to the challenge and create a cleaner, healthier, smarter world. We need not accept that transportation consumes half our energy, and that two-thirds of the energy you put into your car is immediately thrown away out the tailpipe. We need not accept that dangerous emissions are the price we must pay for a vibrant economy and a comfortable life. Above all, we need not accept that we will leave our children a planet that is dirty, overheated, and depleted of resources. As Bill shares his vision, he debunks some of the most persistent myths and misunderstandings about global warming.

Based on the publisher’s description, it seems pretty obvious what this book will be about. Bill Nye has previously made alarming claims about climate change and the coming disastrous effects of it, and likely this book will perpetuate those alarmist ideas. Now, Nye has often wrongly claimed that creationists don’t believe in climate change, but we do—climates change. Anyone can see and experience that. But what you believe about the nature and severity of climate change and how it happens is determined by your worldview. If you start with man’s idea that climates have existed for millions of years and have remained stable since the last ice age, over 10,000 years ago, then a change in the climate is cause for concern and is likely man-made. But since we start with the true history provided in God’s Word we get an entirely different view of climate change.

Originally, the climate was created perfect, but sin changed everything (Genesis 3), and we no longer have a perfect climate. During the global Flood of Noah’s day about 4,350 years ago the climate was radically changed when the surface of the Earth was reshaped by the Flood. The Flood was followed by an Ice Age, which further changed our climate, and climates have gone up and down since. Fluctuations can happen quite quickly and are not cause for grave concern in regard to man’s supposed impact as Bill Nye claims. So when you start with God’s Word, you have an entirely different worldview through which to view climate change and therefore you reach entirely different conclusions about the nature and severity of it. It is true that Bill Nye’s religion of evolutionary naturalism causes him to wrongly interpret climate change. So, in essence, Bill Nye’s new book is indeed a religious book!

Bodie Hodge #fundie

Bodie Hodge #fundie answersingenesis.org

[The ninth commandment says we should never bear false witness against our neighbor (or anyone). But if the Nazis are looking for Jews, and you know where they are, it would not be wrong to lie, in order to protect them, nor would this be bearing false witness “against” someone]

If we love God, we should obey Him (John 14:15). To love God first means to obey Him first—before looking at our neighbor. So, is the greater good trusting God when He says not to lie or trusting in our fallible, sinful minds about the uncertain future?

Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life—keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.

As Christians, we need to keep in mind that Jesus Christ reigns. All authority has been given to Him (Matthew 28:18), and He sits on the throne of God at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33; Hebrews 8:1). Nothing can happen without His say. Even Satan could not touch Peter without Christ’s approval (Luke 22:31). Regardless, if one were to lie or not, Jesus Christ is in control of timing every person’s life and able to discern our motives. It is not for us to worry over what might become, but rather to place our faith and obedience in Christ and to let Him do the reigning. For we do not know the future, whereas God has been telling the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).

Dr. Danny Faulkner #fundie

Dr. Danny Faulkner #fundie answersingenesis.org

What causes the changes in the earth’s rotation? There are several causes. First, random events such as earthquakes can shuffle the earth’s material and change the earth’s moment of inertia. When the earth’s moment of inertia changes, conservation of angular momentum requires that the rotation rate must change as well. For instance, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake that caused the large tsunami shrunk the earth slightly and shortened the earth’s rotation by about 2.7 millionths of a second. Second, annual events such as seasonal growing and melting glaciers and ice caps change the earth’s moment of inertia. Third, there is a long-term periodic trend caused by astronomical bodies.

Finally, there is a long-term secular (non-periodic) slowing in the earth’s rotation caused by the tidal interaction of the earth and moon. As the earth slows its rotation, the moon spirals away from the earth. Therefore, in the past the earth spun more rapidly and the moon was much closer to the earth. Direct computation shows that the earth and moon would have been in contact about 1.3 billion years ago. Even a billion years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth that tides would have been a mile high. No one—including those who believe that the earth is far older than a billion years—thinks that tides were ever that high or that the moon and the earth touched a little more than a billion years ago.

However, since the earth and moon are only thousands of years old as the Bible clearly indicates, the long-term change in the earth-moon system is no problem. Indeed, what we see in the interaction between the earth and moon offers powerful evidence that the earth and moon are young.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

I recently saw an interesting news item about a baby gorilla that was delivered via emergency C-section at the Bristol Zoo in England. What made this noteworthy to me was how the zoo curator and members of the veterinary team referred to the unborn gorilla. They said, “[The mother gorilla] was becoming quite poorly and we needed to act fast in order to give the best possible treatment to mother and baby, and to avoid the possibility of losing the baby. . . . We also thought that the baby in her uterus was showing signs of being very unwell and in need of delivery.”

DNA Similarities
Isn’t it interesting how this unborn gorilla is being referred to as a “baby” before it was born, not a “fetus” even though that’s technically the term for an unborn mammal? The zookeepers and veterinarians treated this unborn gorilla as if it had value even before it was born. Sadly, this dignity is withheld from millions of unborn human babies. Instead of being seen as having inherent value and dignity just for being human, babies are seen as nothing more than an extension of a woman’s body, a clump of tissue, or some other dehumanizing term. So babies are legally murdered at the hand of an abortion doctor despite their humanness. This is tragic!! (...)

(...) Sadly, for many people today, the life of an animal seems to have more value than a human life. But humans have a special kind of inherent value that animals can never have because we alone are made in the very image of God (Genesis 1:27). Animals, though created and cared for by God as well, will never have the value of humans because they simply aren’t made in God’s image. As Christians, we need to affirm the value of every human life—born or unborn. That value is so great that God’s Son stepped into history to pay the penalty for our sin so we could be redeemed! “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Roger Patterson #fundie

Roger Patterson #fundie answersingenesis.org

[From an AiG article on the symbols of Easter]

Egg-laying Bunnies
The hare has been celebrated as a symbol of fertility in many cultures throughout recorded history. Throughout Western celebrations, the hare or rabbit has been attached to the Resurrection of the Savior of the world. Exactly how this connection has come to be varies within cultures, but all are from outside the Bible.

A problematic aspect of the hare in our modern culture comes from the promise of treats to boys and girls who have been good. Not too unlike Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny magically and mysteriously appears in the middle of the night to hide a basket filled with candy for the child. Sadly, rather than waking to a morning focused on celebrating Christ’s victory over death and our assurance of faith in Him (1 Corinthians 15:13–17), the focus is on selfishly seeking a hidden basket of sweets. I ask you to question whether this is a wise practice for your family and yet to reserve judging those who choose to participate in such activities (Romans 14). Every Christian would do well to consider whether this type of activity leads to exalting Christ as Lord and Savior and to make that goal the measure of their decision whether to participate in egg hunts and the like.

Bodie Hodge #fundie

Bodie Hodge #fundie answersingenesis.org

[A girl sends AiG a mail asking whether or not she should be tolerant of her friend converting to Hinduism, as all religions are similar. This is a small piece AiG's answer.]

A final note with regards to Hinduism, God’s Word reveals that He is the only God and that there are no other “gods” besides Him (Exodus 20:2–6). There are many other passages that reveal that, in light of the Bible, Hinduism is a false religion. So, there is no reason—in the eyes of God—to raise up Hinduism or any other religion to be equal to God and His Word or to lower His Word so that fallible sinful human beings sit in judgment over Him.

In Hinduism, there is a belief in “Moksha” or “Mukti,” which is supposed to be the liberation of the soul from the endless cycles of Karma, or the binding life-cycles (also called “samsara”). They often strive to get closer to liberation via several means (primarily devotion to a “god,” good works, or understanding). But the good news of Jesus Christ is that a completed work of salvation has come to mankind once for all.

Romans 6:9–10
For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

Those who have been taught Hinduism may be receptive to repentance and the gospel. For such would be ultimate completion to return to the true God. Please be praying that many in Hinduism and other false religions would consider the true and living God and be saved through Jesus Christ. Also, keep in mind that Hindus are not the enemy, but the false philosophy that has deceived our relatives (Ephesians 6:12).

With kindness for the gospel,
Bodie

David Wright #fundie

David Wright #fundie answersingenesis.org

First, we know God’s Word is true and there was a global Flood. Knowing the Flood happened, and in light of the fact that we have plants today, the important question is: in what ways did the plants and seeds survive the Flood? The logical argument for the fact that plants survived the Flood is actually quite simple.

The Bible states there was a worldwide Flood.
We see plants today.
Therefore plants survived the Flood.

Dr. Danny R. Faulkner #fundie

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?

Bodie Hodge #fundie

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.

Dr. Jason Lisle #fundie

Dr. Jason Lisle #fundie answersingenesis.org

First, the Bible itself claims to be the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). For some reason, many people seem to dismiss this as if such internal evidence doesn’t count. But this is a double standard that they would not apply to most other books. Consider my book Taking Back Astronomy. This book claims to have been written by me, and most people would accept that it really is written by me simply because it says so. So, why do some people arbitrarily reject the Bible’s internal claim? This is the fallacy of special pleading and may indicate an anti-God bias that is part of our fallen nature.

Unknown #fundie

Unknown #fundie answersingenesis.org

Creation, Evolution, and the Passing of a Judicial Giant

We note the passing today of US Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia. As America’s judicial watchers assess his full legacy, we note there were strong hints that he denied the evolution worldview. Last year, speaking at his granddaughter’s high school graduation, Scalia declared: “Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so, and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were.” Biblical creationists argue for 6,000 years as the age of the earth and humankind; evolutionists contend that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor millions of years ago.

Justice Scalia was also one of the dissenters in the famous 1987 Edwards v Aguillard decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation be taught alongside evolution in government-run schools was unconstitutional. In his dissent, he wrote: “The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific ‘fact,’ since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory.”

Justice Scalia also opposed abortion and gay “marriage,” two hot-button issues addressed in the Book of Genesis. As a traditional Roman Catholic, he apparently accepted the teachings of Genesis that humans are created in God’s image and thus abortion is wrong and that marriage was instituted as one man for one woman, starting with Adam and Eve.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Climate-change alarmist Bill Nye the “Science Guy” of TV fame recently produced a short video called “5 Things You Need to Know About Climate Change.” Bill Nye has been a very vocal supporter of the idea of drastic human-caused climate change and has even accused creationists of rejecting climate change—even though we don’t reject it. Climate change is real; climates do change. But we reject the claims of climate change alarmists because we start from a different foundation. Even on a live CNN television interview right after the debate between Bill Nye and me last year, I told him that I do not reject climate change. But Bill refuses to acknowledge this because he wants people to believe creationists deny reality! The problem is that Nye denies that he is interpreting the evidence from a wrong foundation!

[...]

Your Starting Point

Your starting point in interpreting life affects your whole worldview. For instance, using Bill Nye’s starting point that all life evolved by natural processes, and man is just an animal related to all life, then abortion is just killing another animal—marriage can be however you want to define it! Your starting point determines how you interpret climate change, too.

We don’t need to be concerned about drastic climate change. Our climate, and the checks and balances that keep it operating within safe parameters, were designed by an all-wise Creator. And when you start with a biblical view of Earth’s history, you reach an entirely different conclusion about the nature and cause of climate change.

Here are five things every Christian needs to know about climate change:

1.Our climate and atmosphere were designed by an all-wise Creator.

2.Climates do change. They’ve changed before and they’ll change again.

3.Your interpretation of this change depends on your starting point—man’s opinion or God’s Word.

4.God has promised that the seasons will continue (Genesis 8:22).

5.We can have confidence that humanity won’t be snuffed out by climate change. Instead, we know that God is in control of history and it will not end until Jesus Christ returns.

You can learn more about climate change in chapter 16 of The New Answers Book 4, available to be read for free on our website.

Ken Ham #fundie

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.

Answers in Genesis #fundie

Answers in Genesis #fundie answersingenesis.org

Answers in Genesis is excited to announce the launch of its online technical journal called Answers Research Journal (ARJ). Hosted at www.answersresearchjournal.org (but linked to AiG’s website), this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.

Addressing the need to disseminate the vast fields of research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, Answers Research Journal will provide scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins. The newly expanded research effort at Answers in Genesis, with the establishment of its Research Department, will facilitate this further venue for publication and dissemination of the results of creationist research.

Unknown #fundie

Unknown #fundie answersingenesis.org

What Became of Noah and His Wife?

Although Noah lived for 950 years, the Bible only tells us about a small fraction of his life. At 500, his oldest son was born, and the Flood came 100 years later. Sometime after the Flood, we know that he became drunk, leading to the infamous situation with his son, Ham. Have you ever wondered what happened to Noah and his wife following this event?

Noah and his wife likely did not have any other children—at least none that had children of their own, since the nations that were scattered from Babel were from Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Genesis 10:32). Speaking of Babel, we note that the event occurred in Noah’s lifetime, but it’s difficult to picture this righteous man who walked with God as being part of that rebellion.

Without details from the infallible record of Scripture, and as we prepare exhibits inside our Ark about the post-Flood world, we can only speculate how Noah spent his final centuries. A couple of the ancient Flood legends may give us a clue, but these fallible sources must be taken with a grain of salt.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Noah-like character, Utnapishtim, is said to live at the mouth of the rivers, on an island across the waters of death. Another legend places the Noah-like figure at the delta of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

What impact would the rebellion at Babel have had on Noah and his wife? Perhaps they were unable to communicate with their descendants whose languages were confused at Babel. This may account for the traditions that view Noah and his wife as living out their days away from the rest of humanity.

Ultimately, we don’t know where Noah and his wife lived out their days. But we do know that Noah faithfully built the Ark, on which eight people (and thousands of animals) survived the global Flood.

Kid's Answers #fundie

Kid's Answers #fundie answersingenesis.org

Australian Lungfish
Created on Day 5
November 17, 2009
Design

The fossils of a creature almost identical to the Australian lungfish were found in Northern Ireland and were dated at 100 million years. With the Australian lungfish being limited to the waters of Queensland, Australia, how did remains of this creature get in Northern Ireland? Simple. Before the global Flood, the Australian lungfish may not have been limited to its present region. Also, the effects of the Flood could have moved this creature to the area of present-day Northern Ireland and buried it for people to find later. These fossil finds are an amazing testimony to God’s hand in creating the lungfish kind and to His hand in covering the entire earth in a global Flood.

Ken Ham #fundie

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.

Jerry Bergman #fundie

Jerry Bergman #fundie answersingenesis.org

Firmly convinced that Darwinian evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern saviour of mankind. Society, he felt, would some day regard him as a great ‘scientific socialist’, the benefactor of all humankind. By breeding a superior race, the world would look upon him as the man who pulled humanity up to a higher level of evolutionary development. If Darwinism is true, Hitler was our saviour and we have crucified him. As a result, the human race will grievously suffer. If Darwinism is not true, what Hitler attempted to do must be ranked with the most heinous crimes of history and Darwin as the father of one of the most destructive philosophies of history.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Discovery of King Hezekiah’s Seal Confirms God’s Word

I always get excited when I read about archaeological finds in the Middle East that confirm what God’s Word says. Such discoveries have happened many times over the years. Well, a recent find in Jerusalem gives us a personal look into the greatest king of Judah—Hezekiah, the great reformer. The biblical account of Hezekiah and his religious reforms is personally inspiring and encouraging to me. Last summer I wrote an article for Answers [i]magazine about raising up Hezekiah-type reformers today. I encourage you to read the online version of that article on our website.

Well, in the Old Testament we read of King Hezekiah, one of the greatest kings since David and Solomon. Living about 700 years before Christ, his greatness came from the fact that “he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father David had done” (2 Chronicles 29:2). Because he loved the Lord, this king of Judah “did what was good and right and true before the Lord his God. And in every work that he began in the service of the house of God, in the law and in the commandment, to seek his God, he did it with all his heart. So he prospered” (2 Chronicles 31:20–21). He destroyed the idols (2 Chronicles 31:1), purified the Temple and restored the sacrifices (2 Chronicles 29), and started celebrating Passover once again (2 Chronicles 30). Second Kings 18:5 says of him, “Hezekiah trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him.”

Events from the reign of King Hezekiah have already been confirmed by archaeology. Second Chronicles 32:2–4 and 2 Kings 20:20 mention Hezekiah’s tunnel, dug to prepare for an Assyrian siege (a siege God supernaturally kept from happening in 2 Kings 19:25–36), and it’s still part of Jerusalem’s water system today. The Bible mentions that Sennacherib laid siege to the Judean city of Lachish and conquered it (2 Kings 18:13), was defeated in Jerusalem, and then was killed by his sons in the temple of his god (2 Kings 19:37). Both the siege of Lachish and his death have been confirmed by archaeology.

Well, archaeology now offers us a more personal touch from Hezekiah. In the rubbish heap outside a royal building in Jerusalem, a tiny seal impression, called a “bulla,” was discovered. Barely half an inch wide, this seal reads, “Belonging to Hezekiah, [son of] Ahaz, king of Judah.” Eilat Mazar, a third-generation archaeologist who directed the dig, says, “The seal of the king was so important. It could have been a matter of life or death, so it's hard to believe that anyone else had the permission to use the seal. Therefore, it's very reasonable to assume we are talking about an impression made by the King himself, using his own ring.” This is the first seal bearing King Hezekiah’s name ever discovered by an archaeologist (others have been sold on the antiquities market, but they were not discovered by archaeologists, so their authenticity is questionable). It offers a personal look into King Hezekiah since the seal probably came from the ring on his finger. Take a look at a photograph of this seal.

This incredible find confirms God’s Word yet again. Isn’t it exciting being a Christian and seeing how science is constantly confirming the truth of God’s Word? Of course, since the Bible is real recorded history, this is exactly what we should expect—and it’s exactly what we see!

You can read more about archaeology and God’s Word in this chapter from The New Answers Book 1, “Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Atheists don’t want Christians teaching kids about God—they want to teach your kids there is no God! They really are out to get your kids, and they are using the public schools, secular media, museums, and other outlets to do this. The public schools (despite a minority of Christian teachers who are trying to be missionaries in the system) have by and large become churches of secular humanism.

Yes, the atheists, like Hitler and Stalin, know that if they can capture the next generation (through the education system, media, etc.), they will have the culture.

Christians need to take heed of God’s Word and ensure they are capturing the next generation for the Lord—passing that spiritual legacy along to the children, so they will not be captured by the world!

Yes, it takes only one generation to lose a culture. And America is on the brink of such a change right now! God’s people need to wake up and understand a battle for their kids is raging around them—a battle that is being won, at the present time, by those who seek to destroy the next generation spiritually!
A Call for Radical Change

In view of such relentless indoctrination that bombards our young people every day, giving a couple of thirty-minute lessons at church or home isn’t enough. While many parents have already opted to put their kids in Christian schools, weekly church programs, and homeschools, few appear to be doing a very good job filling in the gaps. More is needed.

Teaching young people how God’s Word—rather than the atheistic worldview—makes sense of our world requires intense study, commitment, and fervent prayer on our parts. The church and parents must reevaluate their old assumptions about the way we should be teaching our kids in a hostile culture, and work together to build the next generation by following the directives from God’s Word.

Imagine what would happen if God’s people raised up generations of kids who knew what they believed concerning the Christian faith, why they believe, and how to defend that faith against the secular attacks of the day. They could then proclaim the gospel with authority because they believed the authority upon which it stands. We would change the world!
Connecting Answers to the Gospel

America has long resisted the trend among Western nations to slide into secularism and unbelief, but that is changing. A 2012 survey found that the fastest-growing “religious” group in America has no religion at all. One in five Americans claims no affiliation with religion, and this category is even higher among young adults (one in three).

This downward spiral has impacted churches and Christian homes, as well. Two-thirds of children will leave the church after they leave home. So what’s missing in their lives? And what can we do to stop the exodus?
Answers

“Faith in Christ” isn’t blind. True faith must be built upon a knowledge of the truth, as revealed in God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:15–17). To be saved and walk with God, every believer first must know what he should believe and why. That’s our job . . . telling young people answers from the Bible. We’ve got to address the hard questions that are uppermost in their minds, including the origin of sin and death in this world.
Biblical Authority

The next link in the chain, once young people learn the truth, is for them to submit to the authority of God’s Word (John 14:21; James 1:22). They need to understand why we know the Bible is true: the authority of the One who gave it to us (Hebrews 4:12). They also need to see that, once they accept the Bible’s authority, it will make sense of the world around them.
The Gospel

Most Christians realize they need to proclaim the gospel if they want to see anyone saved (Romans 10:14). The definition of the gospel by which we are saved is quite clear: Christ died, was buried, and rose again “according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). But the power of the gospel rests on the authority of God’s Word (Romans 1:16).
Salvation

A young person’s salvation is ultimately a work of God’s grace. Yet that does not excuse us from responsibility. We have the duty to plant and water the truth (1 Corinthians 3:6–7) and pray to God in faith. But God is the one who “gives the increase” and we should give Him the glory. God has designed this plan for conveying His grace, and we need to make sure we’re doing our part. We are the ones appointed to instruct children with clear answers, to show them the Bible’s ultimate authority, and to share the gracious promises of the gospel!

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

You see, if evolution is true, science has an even bigger problem than Cain’s wife to explain—namely, how could man ever evolve by mutations (mistakes) in the first place, since that process would have made everyone’s children deformed? The mere fact that people can produce offspring that are not largely deformed is a testimony to creation, not evolution.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

One of the reasons many Christians cannot answer the question about Cain’s wife is that they tend to look at today’s world and the problems that would be associated with close relations marrying, and they do not look at the clear historical record God has given to us.
They try to interpret Genesis from our present situation rather than understand the true biblical history of the world and the changes that have occurred because of sin. Because they are not building their worldview on Scripture but taking a secular way of thinking to the Bible, they are blinded to the simple answers.
Genesis is the record of the God who was there as history happened. It is the Word of One who knows everything and who is a reliable Witness from the past. Thus, when we use Genesis as a basis for understanding history, we can make sense of evidence which would otherwise be a real mystery. You see, if evolution is true, science has an even bigger problem than Cain’s wife to explain—namely, how could man ever evolve by mutations (mistakes) in the first place, since that process would have made everyone’s children deformed? The mere fact that people can produce offspring that are not largely deformed is a testimony to creation, not evolution.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Is Polygamy Next?

For years I’ve been saying that once you open the door to redefine marriage, where do you stop? Well, that’s already starting to happen since the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision to legalize gay “marriage” in June. After all, if “love wins,” as gay “marriage” activists say, then by this line of thinking why shouldn’t “love win” in cases of polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia? As soon as you get rid of an absolute standard—God’s Word—anything and everything goes with regard to marriage. It’s just like Scripture says, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

Well, the Browns, a polygamous family made popular by the reality TV show Sister Wives, says the SCOTUS ruling “shows that laws restricting consensual adult relationships are outdated, even if certain unions are unpopular.” Now, the Browns are currently in court “defending a legal victory they won in 2013, when a federal judge struck down key parts of Utah’s law banning polygamy.” The Browns are not seeking to have polygamy legalized, but just to uphold this court ruling that would allow them all to live together without fear of arrest. But court cases like this raise the question of when a polygamous family will decide to fight for the legalization of polygamy. With the redefinition of marriage by SCOTUS, why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry since the new philosophy in our culture is “as long as they love one another”? Again, without an absolute authority you can’t call anything right or wrong!

But polygamy—and other perversions of marriage—are wrong, and we as Christians can say so because we have the authoritative Word from the Creator of marriage. You see, Genesis describes the creation of marriage. It is not something that evolved or that society or a government invented. It’s an institution created by God,

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. (Genesis 1:27–28)

Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said:

This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:22–24)

In Matthew 19, Jesus quotes from Genesis 2 (one flesh) as the basis for marriage being a male and female—one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4–7).

Some erroneously believe that the Bible endorses polygamy because of clear occurrences of it in the Old Testament. But the cases mentioned in detail actually point to the sinfulness of mankind and negative consequences of such situations. God created marriage, and He designed it for one man and one woman for life. Because we have the absolute standard of God’s Word, we can authoritatively declare certain behaviors and practices to be wrong because our Creator says that they are wrong. As Christians, we need to boldly stand on the authority of God’s Word and defend biblical marriage as we act as salt and light in a dying world. You can also read this article on the Answers in Genesis website about whether the Bible condones polygamy.

Those who reject God’s Word as the absolute authority have to live inconsistently in this world. If there is no absolute authority, then who draws the lines in regard to moral issues—and why? Who sets and standards and why? Ultimately, the culture will become like that described in the book of Judges:

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Dawkins’ Mind Is Closed

In an article titled “Atheist Richard Dawkins Calls It ‘Disgraceful’ That Presidential Hopefuls Are Creationists—and Reveals Which Religion Has ‘Maximum Toxicity,’” The Blaze website reports on a Fox News TV interview with prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins.

The Blaze article stated:

Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins decried the fact that some Republican presidential candidates are creationists, calling it “disgraceful” and proclaiming that evolution is a “fact” that “you can not seriously disbelieve” . . . Dawkins repeatedly waded into controversial territory throughout the exchange, with Colmes at one point asking if the biologist believes that religious people are “mentally ill.” “It’s hard to use the word ‘mentally ill’ when there are so many of them,” Dawkins responded. “If they believed what they did and they were the only one they would undoubtedly be called mentally ill.”

During the interview, Dawkins was asked “whether the atheist leader would ever change his mind about God, he said that he’s open to the idea. ‘Just show me some evidence and I’ll change,’ Dawkins said.”

Well, Dawkins has been shown overwhelming evidence by many people through books, discussions, a radio debate with my friend Dr. Andy McIntosh, and so on! In fact, God tells us that people like Richard Dawkins are without excuse (Romans 1:20). Dawkins reminds me of the Pharisees in John 9. After Jesus had healed the man blind from birth, the Pharisees questioned the man and his parents, and even with the evidence glaring at them, they refused to believe. People like Dawkins also remind me of the chief priests in John 12:10 who wanted to kill Lazarus, the man Jesus raised from the dead. Because of their hardened hearts, they refused to believe Jesus raised Lazarus and decided to try to kill Lazarus to get rid of the evidence! Yes, these are apt comparisons when you consider people like Richard Dawkins. We need to pray for him. His heart is hard and he is blind.

. . . whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

So is Dawkins truly “open” to believing in God? Well, he pretends that he is willing to listen to evidence—but the evidence from his own life clearly shows that he refuses to believe despite the evidence. He is like the scoffers in 2 Peter 3:5 who deliberately reject, or are willingly ignorant of Creation, the Flood, and the coming judgment (the very things Dawkins rejects). It is a deliberate act on their part to ignore the obvious and reject the truth!

I’m reminded of what Abraham said about the rich man who wanted to come back from the dead and warn his brothers about judgment after life:

“Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:29–31)

Dawkins has spent most of his life rejecting the writings of Moses, particularly Genesis, and trying to get as many people as he can to follow his rebellious lifestyle that leads directly to hell. Yes, we do need to pray much for him.

Lord, open Richard Dawkins’ mind, and let the light of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ illuminate his hardened heart!

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Ken Ham #fundie

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

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

To me, it’s ironic that when Bill Nye had a video segment in his program praising the technological advancement of the MRI, he was actually praising the work of a creation scientist, and unwittingly praising our Creator God!

Sid Galloway #fundie

Sid Galloway #fundie answersingenesis.org

Even more dangerous than trusting media bias is our greater tendency to believe what “science” authorities tell us. As a warning, I always tell my biology students at home and audiences when I travel and speak, “Don’t believe anything I say, unless you can find sufficient evidence to make it worthy of your trust.” <sup>5</sup>

As biblical creationists, we must exercise humble, logikos <sup>6</sup> thinking, especially if it involves the “science” of psychology (psyche = soul). Most psychologists are also evolutionists, therefore many foundational assumptions regarding the “why” of man’s behavior are rooted in evolutionary philosophy, which then produces “therapeutic” fruit leading to confusion and destruction. <sup>7</sup> In trying to discover natural causes for mankind’s behavior, there is a basic rejection of the biblical doctrine of sin and its consequences.

[No, the footnotes are not links to studies providing proof of his claims--they're bible verses. What, you were expecting, logic?]

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Arkophobia

We’ve all heard of the word arachnophobia, a fear of spiders and other arachnids such as scorpions. Well, there is a new phobia showing up on countless blogs, on Twitter, and in news sources. And it has a similar-sounding name: Arkophobia. It’s a fear of the life-size Ark we are building in Williamstown, Kentucky, that opens July 7.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a phobia as “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.”

Well, the Arkophobia we see all around us is certainly “illogical.” But it’s actually not “inexplicable.” Let me explain.

Arkophobia hit an all-time high the week of January 25. That’s when a federal judge issued a major ruling that gave a huge win to Answers in Genesis in our religious freedom lawsuit against the State of Kentucky and the actions of the previous governor, Steve Beshear.

The judge ruled that Kentucky could not deny the Ark project participation in the state’s tourism tax incentive program. Such a denial would be discriminatory based on the US Constitution and its First Amendment. The judge also ruled in accord with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII of that act, confirming that, as a religious organization, AiG can use religious preferences in Ark hiring.

image

Creation Wise: Ark Danger

Well, that federal decision was too much for the secularist/atheist bloggers. That’s when Arkophobia was at its height. Many secularists were already livid that a Christian organization is building such a massive tourist facility that will have a huge impact in the culture as it proclaims a Christian message! They just can’t stand it! Their hatred against Christianity was so clear after the ruling.

In bemoaning the judge’s decision, one atheist blogger mocked:

"In case you don’t know, Ken Ham is building a big boat in Kentucky and planning to tell people it’s a replica of Noah’s Ark. This, he believes, will make people want to become Christians and stop being gay. Ham’s God really likes spending millions of dollars on vanity woodwork projects but really hates people who love other people of the same gender.

Ham’s God is apparently ambivalent about giving some of those millions of dollars to those who most need it."

These hateful statements really help to reveal Arkophobia. What is the real reason for such vehement opposition to a project that will be so beneficial to the state as it brings hundreds of millions of tourist dollars into Kentucky for hotels, restaurants, and much more, and creates thousands of jobs? It’s because of the message of the Ark.

WHAT IS THE REAL REASON FOR SUCH VEHEMENT OPPOSITION TO THE ARK?
The opposition to the tax incentives, which are offered to any tourism project that will have a positive economic impact in Kentucky and create jobs (called a “neutral purpose”), is illogical. Furthermore, such censorship violates the US Constitution’s guarantee of the freedom of religion and its free exercise. The opposition we have been encountering is due to a heart issue.

Romans 3:23 teaches us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” And Romans 3:10–18 states:

There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Victory in the Courts
In a major ruling, the federal judge confirmed that the 1964 Civil Rights Act allows AiG to use a religious preference in hiring.

The bottom line with the secularist opposition? Arkophobia is so widespread because “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). Secularists are in rebellion against their Creator. The fact that He has the right to tell them, through His Word, what is right (e.g., marriage is one man for one woman) and what is wrong (e.g., abortion is murder) angers them.

Secularists oppose the Ark because they are afraid of the Ark’s goal: to proclaim the everlasting gospel. Revelation 14:6–7 declares:

Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people—saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”

Find out more about the Ark Encounter outreach at ArkEncounter.com.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Will Obama Celebrate Lucy Today?

As Google has reminded us all today, November 24, 2015, marks the 41st anniversary of the discovery in Ethiopia of the australopithecine popularly known as Lucy. Today’s Google Doodle honors the supposed human ancestor, and the drawing illustrates the worldview that believes in a supposed gradual evolution from ape to modern man, with Lucy in between. (Interestingly, November 24 is also the anniversary of Darwin’s Origin of Species.)

image

According to evolutionists, Lucy walked on two legs, and the group she represents is a distant ancestor of humanity (though how closely related is disputed even in their camp). US President Barack Obama even recently “met” Lucy and commented, almost reverently, on how she shows how all mankind is related to one another.

Obama stated, “We are reminded that Ethiopians, Americans, all the people of the world are part of the same human family, the same chain. And as one of the professors who was describing the artifacts correctly pointed out, so much of the hardship and conflict and sadness and violence that occurs around the world is because we forget that fact. We look at superficial differences as opposed to seeing the fundamental connection that we all share.”

And as I said in my post then, “We do not need to look to Lucy to unite us as part of some evolutionary human family. God’s Word makes it clear that we are all one family, not because of some alleged evolutionary connection, but because we’re all descended from Adam and Eve, who were specially created by God. We do not all belong to different races. We’re all one race—the human race.”

Sadly, this evolutionary influence is creeping into the church and being promoted by groups like BioLogos.

Really, this Google Doodle highlights where our culture is headed. Our supposed evolutionary ancestry is increasingly being celebrated—but it’s nothing more than a major tenet of the religion of naturalism. Google isn’t promoting science—they are promoting an interpretation of the past that is a key idea in the atheistic religion of naturalism. But as our culture moves farther and farther from biblical authority, we can only expect this kind of celebration of our alleged evolutionary past to continue, even creeping into the church.

But Lucy wasn’t a human ancestor. She’s just an extinct variety of ape. There is nothing about her to suggest that she’s a transitional form between ape-like and human-like. It’s simply an interpretation of the fossils from an evolutionary worldview.

Now, the Google Doodle shows Lucy (the one character that is drawn in color in the doodle) walking upright, very much like humans. But Lucy didn’t walk upright! That’s an interpretation based off a reconstruction of Lucy’s leg and hip bones and some fossilized footprints—clearly human footprints—found in Tanzania, far from Lucy’s resting place. Because these footprints are considered by the evolutionists to have been made too early to be humans, it’s assumed that a creature like Lucy must have made them. But Lucy (and others of her species that were later discovered) had ape hips, ape shoulders, ape wrists, ape fingers, and ape toes—they didn’t make those footprints! It’s an interpretation imposed on the fossils because of an evolutionary worldview. You can learn more about the idea that Lucy walked upright in “Lucy: Did She Walk Like Us?

We have a world-class hologram exhibit here at the Creation Museum that features Lucy. It shows how evolutionists and creationists come to the evidence—Lucy’s bones—with completely different starting points, and so they reach entirely different conclusions because of those starting points. From a biblical worldview it’s clear that Lucy is just an extinct variety of ape, amazingly designed for a tree-dwelling, knuckle-walking existence, and that she tells us nothing about human ancestry. She does, however, point toward a time after the Flood when there was more variety in the ape kind that has slowly died out.

You can learn more about Lucy and other supposed human ancestors in “Did Humans Really Evolve from Apelike Creatures?,” or in Dr. David Menton’s DVD Lucy—She’s No Lady!

By the way, it’s no wonder Obama has such a shifting worldview. Instead of anchoring his worldview/morality to the absolute authority of God’s Word, he anchors it the bones of Lucy—to the ever-shifting beliefs of man—to a man centered religion! That’s why we see moral relativism permeating the nation more and more. We need to pray for our leaders that they will turn to the God of Creation and believe His Word and anchor their worldview to one true God—the Creator God of the Bible.

You know, November 24 is a day that my family celebrates for a completely different reason. Today is my first grandson Malachi’s 16th birthday. We celebrate that God gave us this special gift—a grandson made in God’s image—on this day, and we think that’s a much better reason to celebrate November 24. And Malachi praises God too because he has put his faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. And that’s more important than anything else in this life. Even more important than being President of the United States.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Dr. Russ Humphreys' #fundie

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).

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Now here is the problem. If there are intelligent beings on other planets, then they would have been affected by the fall of Adam because the whole creation was affected. So these beings would have to die because death was the penalty for sin. One day their planet will be destroyed by fire during God’s final judgment, but they cannot have salvation because that blessing is given only to humans.

Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Is BioLogos Promoting Heresy?

BioLogos is an organization that is using millions of dollars (including considerable funding by the Templeton Foundation) to try to convince Christian leaders, Christians, and churches to adopt the ideas of evolution and billions of years into the Bible. On their website we read:

BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.
One of their core commitments states:

"We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years."

But are they just trying to impose evolutionary ideas onto God’s Word? No! It’s much more than that—they are trying to impose what I believe is really a heretical view of God’s character and the gospel. Can I justify this? Well, you judge for yourself.

On February 15, 2016, BioLogos posted a video by Rev. Leonard J. Vander Zee, who has an MDiv from Calvin Theological Seminary, and is a former pastor of South Bend (Indiana) Christian Reformed Church.

The president of BioLogos, Deborah Haarsma, is former professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where BioLogos is currently located. She stated this about Reverand Vander Zee’s presentation.

"He began to preach an amazing visual sermon, spinning a tale of wonder and beauty about “the true story of the whole world” (as N. T. Wright calls the Bible). Len brought the key events from billions of years of natural history right alongside the biblical narrative, with scientific images and beautiful artwork. My jaw dropped as he described the scientific wonders of the Big Bang as a reflection of the joy of the Trinity—God the Father, Son, and Spirit. He told the story of the evolution of plants and animals as an expression of God’s creativity, something we celebrate at BioLogos. He told of the development of the first humans and of how our sin tore us away from God’s intended path. He brought us on a journey through God’s plan for salvation in Jesus Christ and finally to the end of all things in God’s restored creation."

Now the entire almost 12-minute video is on the BioLogos website and on YouTube. It’s nothing more than taking the secular/atheistic evolutionary views and attributing every aspect of evolution and billions of years to God!

I encourage you to watch the entire video later, but first watch these segments I have selected:

(Video clips on website)

So, Reverend Vander Zee attributes millions of years of evolutionary processes (that involve death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed) to God—which itself is an attack on the character of our Holy God. But obviously he has no place for a literal Adam and Eve and literal Fall. He implies that there are more than two humans that evolved and that the whole universe and all life are in this continuous evolutionary progression.

Now watch this segment where he mentions sin—seemingly as something that is part of this evolutionary progression that spreads through human kind—not original sin by one man as the Bible clearly teaches (Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22)

Now watch how he describes salvation.

Reverend Vander Zee seems to be saying that salvation means that we evolve into some glorified state. Here are his words in print:

"I want you to notice something important here that often gets lost in telling the Christian story. Salvation is not about leaving behind our broken humanity or the spoiled created order. Salvation is about becoming human, and as restored human beings in the image of God, bringing the created order to its full glory. Here is how Paul puts it in Romans 8, “The whole creation stands on tiptoe, waiting for the revealing of the children of God . . . in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8:18–20, paraphrase). Jesus Christ is the true and human image of the invisible God. By faith in Christ, through his shed blood and victorious resurrection, we are being restored by the Spirit to our true human identity as image-bearers of God. As Paul puts it, “We . . . are being transformed into his image with ever increasing glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18)."

What could this possibly mean? He says, “Salvation is not about leaving behind our broken humanity” (a statement consistent with theistic evolutionists’ denial of Adam and Eve’s literal Fall). Yet we’re “restored” as “human beings in the image of God,” and we’re “restored” as humans “to our true human identity as image-bearers of God.” The definition of restore is “reestablish,” “to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition.”3 Which is it? If humanity wasn’t broken in the beginning, why restore it?

If, instead, Reverend Vander Zee actually meant “to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition” when he used the term “restore,” then what was the original condition? The original state (according to his evolutionary view) was deplorable—an existence filled with death and suffering and disease and every other evolutionary process that gave rise to humans! Since salvation normally denotes our eternal hope, are we as Christians to comfort ourselves in an eternity of death and suffering and disease and every other nasty evolutionary process?

Furthermore, Reverend Vander Zee says, “Salvation is not about leaving behind . . . the spoiled created order.” If so, then perhaps the current world in which we live—the one filled with death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed—will remain eternally. Is this picture any prettier or something to look forward to?

Whichever way you try to understand it, in the context of Reverend Vander Zee’s evolutionary narrative, his statement on salvation is confused and seriously contrary to Scripture.

Theistic evolutionists can’t have it both ways. If you take away from the Christian worldview of the literal Fall and its cosmic effects, what happens to the Bible’s teaching about the new heavens and new earth? Is there any room for heaven in the theistic evolutionary worldview? Once you whittle away the beginning and the end of the story from the Christian gospel, is there much left to gut?

Not surprisingly, the BioLogos organization has a statement of faith that lacks any clear position on the Christian’s future hope. They claim to “believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God,” but with respect to whether Jesus will return bodily, whether hell exists, and whether heaven is a place free of death and suffering, BioLogos has no explicit statement.

Why not? It probably goes back to their first—and even bigger—omission in their statement of faith: “We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God.” Do you see what’s missing? They don’t explicitly endorse the inerrancy of Scripture! So they’re free to distort the beginning and the end of the Christian history of redemption. When BioLogos finishes their campaign, what will be left of Christianity?

Personally, I call it heresy because the definition of heresy is

"opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system."

Reverend Vander Zee’s description of salvation is a logical consequence of the acceptance of man’s fallible atheistic evolutionary beliefs combined with God’s infallible Word. BioLogos wants to call this “evolutionary creation”—but in reality it’s “theistic evolution,” which is only one step away from atheistic evolution. And the one step away is, in reality, one generation away, as we see increasing numbers of the millennial generation walking away from the church and rejecting the clear teachings of God’s Word. Compromised teaching like this from BioLogos is a major cause of this falling away, as revealed in the research we’ve had conducted and detailed in Already Gone and Ready to Return.

The thrust of BioLogos is not in accord with the biblical doctrines of Christianity; thus it is in reality from the spirit of anti-Christ. Church, be warned!

Pam Sheppard #fundie

Pam Sheppard #fundie answersingenesis.org

Each land animal kind was represented on Noah’s Ark by two or seven individuals. After the Flood, as each kind reproduced and spread out over the earth, different species within a kind resulted from natural selection (and other genetic factors). This is NOT EVOLUTION in the molecules-to-man sense, because no new information is added into the genes.