Atheist Dr. J. Craig Venture Dies - Worked on Decoding the Human Genome

 https://www.facebook.com/reel/1456568619110296

Read More

The Real Problem Behind Charlie Kirk's Martyrdom

Read More

How Could Light from Distant Stars Reach Earth in 6,000 Years?

Read More

Here’s What People NEED to Realize About the Trump Shooting

Read More

Six-Day Creation

Read More

Science Confirms the Bible

Read More

Can Forensic Scientists Prove Evolution?

By Ken Ham and the AIG Team.
Go to AIG here. -

Creationists and, as I pointed out during my debate with Bill Nye, TV’s “The Science Guy” last year, even some secular textbooks have highlighted the distinction between the two different kinds of science. One kind of science is observational science, which deals directly with the present. It’s directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s the kind of science that builds airplanes and cell phones, and put a rover on Mars. The other kind of science is historical science. Historical science deals with the past and is therefore not directly testable, observable, or repeatable. In historical science, the evidence must be interpreted on the basis of one’s worldview—the facts don’t “speak for themselves” (e.g., fossils don’t speak and don’t come with labels)—so what you believe about the past directly determines how you interpret the evidence.

What Are the Two Kinds of Science?

This distinction between the two types of science shows that it’s not ultimately a battle over the evidence (as we all have the same evidence), and it’s not a battle between science and faith. Rather, it’s a battle over two different views about the past that are used to interpret the evidence of the present. Biblical creationists start with God’s Word and interpret historical science through the lens of the history recorded in the Bible. Evolutionists start with man’s ideas about the past and interpret the evidence through that lens. It’s the same evidence, but we come to radically different conclusions because we have completely different starting points.

One branch of historical science is forensic science. It involves collecting clues and trying to piece together what happened in the past to solve a crime (or determine if indeed a crime even happened). This kind of science is often the subject of many popular detective and crime TV shows. Now, evolutionists will often say that evolution is just like forensic science. They say that we can examine the evidence at a crime scene and piece together what happened, often with reasonable assurance, so therefore can we look at the evidence around the world and see that evolution happened.

Forensic Science Must Be Interpreted

Now, there are many similarities between historical and forensic science. After all, forensic science is a branch of historical science. Just like in historical science, the facts don’t speak for themselves. They must be interpreted by the investigator. Sometimes the interpretation is pretty straightforward, but other times it’s not. The investigator must painstakingly collect all the data, find eyewitnesses, and compare the data with the eyewitnesses’ accounts of what happened. All of this is in an effort to reconstruct what happened in the past to produce the evidence left behind. But at times in this world, forensic scientists have come to the wrong conclusion and so the wrong person was charged with a crime.

Collecting the data is part of observational science. The forensic scientist looks around and finds things like fingerprints, DNA evidence, shell casings, eyewitness testimony, or other pieces of observational evidence. Of course, it should be noted that even data collection involves some historical science because the investigator was not there when the crime happened. The investigator does not know if the evidence was tampered with, planted to frame someone, or was contaminated, or perhaps the investigator purposely falsified the evidence. And sometimes evidence that would be very relevant is missed because the investigator did not know of its relevance! Now, after all of the observational evidence has been collected, the data must be interpreted. Reconstructing what happened is historical science.

When evolutionists say that the science that gives us forensics works the same as evolution and “proves” that evolution happened, they are neglecting to understand that forensics is a methodology, not a conclusion. We use forensic science to help us understand what happened, but the conclusion doesn’t come from the forensics—it comes from the interpretation of the evidence collected by the forensic scientists. This is obvious in the courtroom. Eventually, the evidence is brought before a jury or a judge. Both the prosecuting attorney and the defending attorney use the same evidence, but completely different interpretations of it, to try to convince the judge or jury of the defendant’s innocence or guilt. Perhaps the prosecuting attorney brings forth a gun, some fingerprints, and some shell casings as observational evidence. He interprets it to mean that the accused was there and he was the one who shot the victim. The defense attorney, however, will look at the same observational evidence and will perhaps argue that the fingerprints were from a previous visit and that the gun was stolen so the accused is innocent. He will argue that the prosecuting attorney is misinterpreting the evidence. It’s the same evidence, but different conclusions.

There are plenty of examples of where the evidence was interpreted wrongly and, later, new evidence shed light on what really happened. For example, in 2002 a woman was convicted of robbing and murdering her neighbor because her fingerprint was supposedly found on a pill container. Later it was found out that the fingerprint wasn’t actually hers—she had been wrongly imprisoned because of an incorrect interpretation of the observational evidence.

Evidence from Historical Science Must Be Interpreted

This is the same as evolution. The evidence from historical science must be interpreted. The assumptions of the researcher or scientist determine how the evidence is interpreted. An evolutionist interprets the evidence through the lens of man’s ideas about the past—millions of years and evolution. But a biblical creationist looks at exactly the same evidence and comes to a completely different conclusion because we have a completely different starting point.

Now, a big part of forensic science is reliable eyewitness testimony. In historical science, Christians have an eyewitness testimony from the Creator of the universe recorded for us in His Word. This testimony is the most reliable because it comes from the God who never lies (Titus 1:2). But evolutionists totally ignore this eyewitness testimony—something a forensic scientist would hopefully never do! They reach the wrong conclusions because they have the wrong starting point.

Evolutionists also ignore other interpretations of the data. Unlike a forensic scientist who tries to look at all different angles for how the crime may have been committed and by whom, evolutionists are committed to their interpretation of the evidence. Few stop to question the assumptions of millions of years or evolution. Biblical creation—even if it provides a far more consistent and better explanation of the evidence—is automatically rejected because it doesn’t match with the starting assumptions of secular scientists.

Forensics doesn’t prove evolution. Forensics merely provides a good illustration of a historical science system that uses observational science methodology. The evidence must be interpreted, and what you believe about the past determines how you interpret the evidence. We need to start with God’s unchanging, infallible Word and reach our conclusions from that firm foundation.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

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

Read More

Atheists Express Their Intolerance and Hatred of Anything Christian

Ken Ham AIG

Well, atheist groups are again showing their intolerance for anything—or anyone!—Christian. A friend of our ministry, Eric Hovind of Creation Today, recently spoke in a public high school debate class in Georgia on critical thinking. Well, an atheist group, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), is “requesting an investigation into Hovind’s appearance.”

Apparently, a lawyer from FFRF wrote a letter to the school stating, “It is unconstitutional and completely inappropriate for TCCHS to host a fundamentalist Christian speaker whose sole purpose and goal is the promotion of biblical creationism . . . . It is difficult for us to understand how this presentation could have been approved . . . . Your community undoubtedly includes many people who have professional experience . . . to discuss ‘critical thinking’ with students interested in debate, and whose presence would not violate clear constitutional dictates.” This lawyer is reportedly claiming that having Eric come to the public school and speak is a violation of the First Amendment.

Now, to claim that Eric can’t speak in a public school about critical thinking simply because he is a Christian/creationist is absolutely ridiculous. Christians are not second-class citizens barred from participating in society or from speaking in the public sphere. In no way is having a Christian give a lecture on critical thinking a violation of the First Amendment. If FFRF wants to claim that Christians can’t speak on critical thinking, then neither can they! But this is the type of intimidation these secular groups are often using to try to inhibit Christians from speaking out in this country. Really, such secular groups want freedom of speech as long it is their own! They want freedom of religion as long as it is their own religion (i.e., the worldview of naturalism and humanism I mention below)! They want the free exercise of religion as long as it is only for them!

You see, anytime that atheists or other secular humanists are speaking in the public sphere or in a school, they are promoting religion. They are teaching students that the universe and all life came about through natural processes. Naturalism is atheism. Atheism or secular humanism is no less a religion than Christianity is. It is a set of beliefs through which they view and interpret the world that they cling to with blind faith and ardor—it’s a religion. In fact, in some places humanism is even officially categorized as a religion. Those at FFRF and similar organizations are just as religious and fundamental as Eric or any other Christian! So if Christians can’t speak on critical thinking in the classroom then neither can atheists, agnostics, or other humanists! Virtually, no one would be able to speak in a classroom—including the teacher!

.FFRF can’t stand a Christian even being allowed to give a lecture on critical thinking! What are they so afraid of? All that FFRF’s complaint does is show their hatred of anything Christian. The organization would better be called the “Freedom from Christianity Foundation”—because that is their true motivation in what they strive for.

They know in their hearts that God exists, but they are actively suppressing this belief in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). They fight so hard against a God that they claim doesn’t even exist because they know that He really does! We need to pray that, instead of fighting against God, these lost individuals will repent and put their faith and trust in Christ and in what He did for them.
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)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Read More

Challenging Atheists at the Kentucky State Fair

Ken Ham
My brother Stephen recently had the opportunity to challenge atheists at their booth at the Kentucky State Fair. Here is the report he sent me:


My family and I went the Kentucky State Fair recently. Dave (my son) placed second in the open division for pencil drawing. We were all very excited.



While we were there, we spent quite some time walking through all the different booths representing different companies and organizations. Among them was a booth representing the Association of Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and Free Thinkers. I was drawn to the booth because at the very front of the booth was a life-size model of Charles Darwin next to a petition against the Ark Encounter project. I decided to have a chat with the man and lady who were occupying the booth, and thought I would give you a quick report about the conversation.

At least for most of the conversation, I did not say that I had anything to do with the AiG ministry. I figured that might have increased an antagonistic tone right from the beginning, so I just introduced myself using my first name and asked a question.

After asking which word on their sign each of them identified with (atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker), I asked them why they did not believe in the biblical God. It was not unexpected to hear each of these people talking about science and the consensus of scientists, and issues that I would simply describe as humanistic rationalism. It never surprises me to hear atheist/agnostic dialogue that starts with the assumption of human autonomy as the authority for reason, and a commitment to uniformitarianism.

In much of our discussion, which was very amicable, we were able to really discuss the whole matter of assumptions. It is always very liberating to be able to immediately put forward that my starting assumption is that the Bible is true and that God has revealed Himself to us in His Word. My friends in the booth were initially reluctant to admit that they had starting assumptions about the past, although one of them did freely admit it later in the conversation. We discussed that they had assumptions such as life coming from non-life that could not be proven in the present. They did recognize that there were gaps in what they could know, in respect to observational science compared to what they believed about the past. One of the intriguing parts of our conversation was when we were talking about the use of the historical testimony of the Bible as it relates to science.

My friends in the booth did not want to give the biblical testimony a foot in the door, and indeed they didn’t. One of them used a rather intriguing analogy to show how they use deductive reasoning to seek out past happenings. I will try and represent it using my own words. Imagine if next to the table (in the booth) was a broken glass on the ground with water around it. If we didn’t see what happened, we would look at the situation and make deductions about what happened in the past to this glass. We would likely deduce that the glass had fallen from the table and smashed on the ground. I said that this might indeed be a good guess and that I could see how somebody might come to this deduction. I then suggested that it could also be that somebody walking past just dropped the glass there and that it had nothing to do with the table, or perhaps the glass may have already been broken somewhere else and placed there with extra water being poured upon it. Of course, I suggested that the last situation would be unlikely but the fact is, if we were not there, we could not rule it out. They suspiciously agreed. I then asked what they would do if someone came to the booth later and told us that they saw somebody throw the glass of water on the ground. Would they believe that testimony? They agreed that they probably would because they didn’t see it. They weren’t there, but this person was. We talked some about why we would believe the testimony of that person. How would we know we could trust them? They were willing to accept that the onus would be on them to prove him wrong and they could even use observational skills to see if the evidence confirmed the testimony. I pointed out that if they did this, they would be acting in a contrary manner to how they are treating the issues concerning the origins of life and the universe. They are unwilling to accept or even see if the biblical testimony is confirmed by scientific observation of the evidence in the present. The onus is on them to prove it wrong, but they are unwilling to even consider it. They have a contradictory process.

For a while, the conversation got on to talking about the ability to do science. We discussed that we can only observe and measure things accurately because we can trust our senses and the uniformity of laws that exist in the universe. This brought up an opportunity for a classic presuppositional apologetic argument about the irrationality of expecting consistent uniform laws from random chance. God, however, has told us in His Word that He has given us all the laws that govern the universe. We can only do science because the God of the Bible has created the laws necessary for it. One of my friends in the booth objected that if God has to obey those laws, then God could not be all powerful. In agreement, I talked about the fact that God not only instituted these laws, but we have a testimony of miracles showing that God indeed works outside of these laws, showing Himself alone to be God just as we would expect. I did not expect my friends to agree with the concept of miracles, although I asked them how then they could account for major things they believe that are not observed, such as something coming from nothing, life coming from non-life, and information existing without an informer.

Apart from speaking about science and knowledge, I asked what other areas have caused them to protest against God. Often sadness in someone’s life in respect to losing a friend or seeing suffering is also behind motives. The issues of death, suffering, and evil were again evident in this discussion. While time did not allow me to deal as in-depth with these issues, only the biblical worldview can account for such, and in fact there is only an ultimate basis for understanding good, evil, and morality in the Christian worldview. I directed them to our website.

Bottom line, every time I have these conversations, I am convinced that we need to do more to help equip the church to give answers about understanding the nature of science, reason, and morality, and defending the true history in the Word of God. We need to be able to answer these questions about death and suffering and other general questions about the biological, geological, astronomical, anthropological, and archeological history in the Bible.

As I was having the discussion with these people, I was constantly reminding myself that it will never be my arguments that are going to help these people, but I must just answer questions and discuss to the best of my ability to allow me to share the most important message I can share. I was continually moving toward sharing the gospel. I am thankful that I was indeed able to testify that the true history in God’s Word points to the history of human sin, God’s judgment, and the true testimony that Jesus Christ came and lived a sinless life, died on the Cross, and rose again on the third day. If we come to Him in repentance and faith, we can be saved from the judgment we all deserve. I pleaded with them to think about their position before God and His gospel.

As I was leaving, I pointed to their petition against the Ark Encounter.





I told them I hoped that people, particularly Christians, have been friendly to them as they engage in their right to free speech. I told them that I worked for the organization that is building the Ark. Well, one of them actually suspected it. At the end of the day, I enjoyed our conversation. My heart goes out to these two people who are living in hatred of the God that they will not admit to be real. They only know a relationship with God based on His judgment, but my prayer for them is that they will come to know His mercy and grace.

I realized something after our discussion. I am not really surprised at the contradictions coming from the people I talked to. They accept the use of testimony except when that testimony is the Bible. They say that Christians have a God of the gaps but are unable to explain their own gaps, apart from claiming that it is a mystery yet to be solved. Mystery is their “god of the gaps.” They are happy to use assumptions of uniformitarianism but accuse Christians of working on assumptions. Is it any surprise that they would stand for freedom of speech and then create a petition that says the Ark Encounter should not receive the state government tourism incentive because its message is one they don’t agree with?

I didn’t leave with them bowing down and professing Christ. I didn’t expect to. But I do trust the power of the gospel and the Holy Spirit. And, despite their aggressive campaigning against our ministry, we exist to equip Christians to reach out with the gospel to these people and everybody else in the world. They don’t want to see us in Kentucky, but we do want to see them in heaven.

Read More

Raising Godly Children in an Ungodly World, Part 1 Ken Ham

Read More

Ken Ham, Bill Nye creation debate draws global interest

By Erin Roach, Baptist Press, Feb 6, 2014

PETERSBURG, Ky. (BP)—Hundreds of thousands of people comprised an international audience to watch a debate between creationist Ken Ham and evolutionist Bill Nye, demonstrating a vibrant interest in origins in an era when many consider the topic settled science.

“The battle is really about authority. It’s more than just science or evolution or creation. It’s about who is the authority in this world, man or God?” Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, said Feb. 4 during a debate he hosted in Petersburg, Ky., with Nye, known on television as “The Science Guy.” The event was streamed live online.

“If you start with naturalism, then who decides right and wrong? Well, it’s subjective,” Ham said. Marriage becomes “whatever what you want it to be.” Euthanasia and abortion also become acceptable because “we’re all animals.”

“But if you start from God’s Word, there are moral absolutes. God decides right and wrong. Marriage: one man and one woman. Sanctity of life: we care for old people; they’re made in the image of God. Life begins at fertilization, so abortion is killing a human being,” Ham said, explaining how a person’s view of the origins of life impacts all of life.

Ham distinguished between the way scientists determine what happened in the past and the way they investigate phenomena in the present, calling the two fields “historical science” and “observational science.” Creation, as described in the Bible, he said, is the only viable model of historical science when it comes to origins.

“People by and large have not been taught to look at what you believe about the past as different from what you’re observing in the present,” Ham said. “You don’t observe the past directly.”

Ham said a scientist can observe that the earth is not flat but cannot observe the age of the earth. “There’s a big difference between historical science, talking about the past, and observational science, talking about the present,” he said in the 150-minute debate moderated by CNN’s Tom Foreman.

Nye, CEO of the Planetary Society, said mainstream science makes no distinction between historical science and observational science. “These are constructs unique to Mr. Ham,” he said, adding that the same natural laws apply to the past and the present.

Nye claimed that if students are taught creation as a viable model of origins, then the U.S. economy will suffer because America will lag behind other nations in technological advancements.

Ham cited several accomplished scientists and inventors who embrace the creation model, and he asked Nye to name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution.

Nye, an agnostic, made a case for what he called the absurdity of “Ken Ham’s creation model.”

“Mr. Ham and his followers have this remarkable view of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced everything that we observe in nature—a 500-foot wooden boat, eight zookeepers for 14,000 individual animals, every land plant in the world underwater for a full year. I ask us all is that really reasonable?” Nye said.

Fossils found in limestone in Kentucky, for example, prove the earth is much older than Ham allows, Nye said. “We are standing on millions of layers of ancient life. How could those animals have lived their entire life and formed these layers in just 4,000 years?” he said. “There isn’t enough time since Mr. Ham’s flood for this limestone that we’re standing on to have come into existence.”

The Bible is not “a more reasonable assessment of the natural laws we see around us than what I and everybody in here can observe,” Nye said, calling such a view “unsettling, troubling.” Nye charged Ham with holding a “magical” notion that natural laws have not always operated in the same way, an apparent reference to Ham’s view that God intervened in the world supernaturally at key points in history.

In the debate over origins, Ham said the terms need to be defined correctly. “I assert the word ‘science’ has been hijacked by secularists in teaching evolution to force the religion of naturalism on generations of kids,” he said.

“… We see the collapse of Christian morality in our culture and increasing moral relativism because generations of kids are being taught the religion of naturalism and that the Bible can’t be trusted,” Ham said.

Creationists and evolutionists work side-by-side on medicines, vaccines and other innovations, Ham said. “It doesn’t matter whether you’re a creationist or an evolutionist. All scientists have the same experimental, observational science.”

Where he and Nye differ, Ham said, is in their starting points as they try to interpret the evidence for how life began—something they didn’t witness.

“It’s a battle over philosophical worldviews and starting points but the same evidence,” Ham said. “I admit my starting point is that God is the ultimate authority. If someone doesn’t accept that, then man has to be the ultimate authority. That’s really the difference when it comes down to it.”

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was among those at the debate. The central issue in the debate was not the age of the earth or the claims of modern science, Mohler said. “The question was not really about the ark or sediment layers or fossils. It was about the central worldview clash of our times, and of any time: the clash between the worldview of the self-declared ‘reasonable man’ and the worldview of the sinner saved by grace.”

Read More

Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Debate Pre-show

Read More

Post-Debate Answers Live w/Ken Ham

Read More

Don’t Be Taken in by the Noah Movie’s Promotion

by Ken Ham

Is the movie trailer promoting the blockbuster film Noah—to be released in March—part of a Hollywood con?

Why would I even suggest that? Well, if you watch the movie’s trailer, it seems that the film might be compatible with the biblical account of the Flood and Ark of Noah. But I believe the trailer was put together very carefully and cleverly to attract Christians and Jews—those who might be inclined to pay to see the film and not speak out against it. In fact, many Christians and Christian organizations have already come out publicly to say they can’t wait to see this movie. But what will Noah, with movie star Russell Crowe, really show? Should Christians promote this movie just based on what Hollywood is letting them see?

We have heard from various sources—including two close friends of AiG who watched a rough cut of the film—that it is not at all faithful to the biblical account in Genesis. The final movie will probably be very unbiblical in some bizarre and shocking ways.

For example, the main characters of the movie are Noah, his wife, and three sons—and one little girl they rescued after all in her family were murdered by an evil tribe. She was badly injured when they found her, but Noah’s wife placed healing nectar on her stomach and she later grew up to become the eldest son’s wife. For the longest time she was barren in the womb until Noah’s wife convinced Methuselah to bless her womb—against Noah’s wishes.

Noah at first is portrayed as a humble yet strong good man—a father and husband who protected his family from the evil that had come upon the world. But as he helped build the Ark, he was portrayed more like a basket-case who was convinced that his family was the last generation. He repeated over and over again that God would not let them repopulate since God would replant Eden without man and perfection would be reestablished with the “innocent animals” God brought on the Ark. Even when Noah’s eldest son brought news to the family on the Ark that his wife was expecting, the movie’s Noah said essentially, “If it is a male, he shall live. If a girl, I will kill her because it is not God’s will for man to repopulate.”

Here are a few more problem areas seen in the rough cut of the film, most of which I expect to be in the final film:
In the film, Noah was robbed of his birthright by Tubal-Cain. The serpent’s body (i.e., Satan), which was shed in Eden, was their “birthright reminder.” It also doubled with magical power that they would wrap around their arm. So weird!
Noah’s family only consists of his wife, three sons, and one daughter-in-law, contrary to the Bible.
It appears as if every species was crammed in the Ark instead of just the kinds of animals, thus mocking the Ark account the same way secularists do today.
“Rocks” (that seem to be fallen angels) build the Ark with Noah!
Methuselah (Noah’s grandfather) is a type of witch-doctor, whose mental health is questionable.
Tubal-Cain defeats the Rocks who were protecting the finished Ark.
A wounded Tubal-Cain axes his way inside the Ark in only about ten minutes and then hides inside. Tubal-Cain then convinces the middle son to lure Noah to the bottom of the Ark in order to murder him (because he was not allowed a wife in the Ark). Tubal-Cain stays alive by eating hibernating lizards. The middle son of Noah has a change of heart and helps kill Tubal-Cain instead.
Noah becomes almost crazy as he believes the only purpose to his family’s existence was to help build the Ark for the “innocent” animals (this is a worship of creation).
Noah repeatedly tells his family that they were the last generation and were never to procreate. So when his daughter-in-law becomes pregnant, he vows to murder his own grandchild. But he finally has a change of heart.
Noah does not have a relationship with God but rather with circumstances and has deadly visions of the Flood.
The Ark lands on a cliff next to a beach.
After the Flood Noah becomes so distant from his family that he lives in a cave, getting drunk by the beach.

There were many other bizarre, unbiblical aspects in the preview cut. Though it’s possible that some of these elements may not make the final cut (though we suspect most will), compare the above list to the trailer that has just been released! The comparison should be very revealing for you. You wouldn’t get much of a hint of most of the biblical problems in the list above based on watching on this cleverly-put-together trailer. A real con job, to be frank!

Do you really want your family/children to see such an unbiblical Hollywood portrayal of a very sobering event in Scripture, one that was a result of man’s wickedness? Do you want your kids to see Noah’s Ark portrayed by Hollywood as above, instead of the fact it was an Ark of salvation because of the grace of God—reminding us that as Noah and his family went through a door to be saved, so we need to go through a door?


[Jesus said,] “I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.” (John 10:9)

Do you really want your family/children to see Noah portrayed by Hollywood as it is in the above summary, instead of how God’s Word describes him in the “Hall of Fame” in Hebrews 11?


By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. (Hebrews 11:7)

Again, we don’t know what will be in the final cut of the film. But this list we have presented should be enough for Christians to understand that this movie is unbiblical!

Now, I do recognize that God is Sovereign and He can even use this Hollywood production to cause people be directed to His Word. Let’s pray that despite the unbiblical nature of this movie, that God will move hearts to seek Him.

As for AiG, we will continue to focus on the ministry the Lord has called us to, including building the Ark Encounter that will be as biblically accurate as we can make it—all in an effort to share the truth of God’s Word and the gospel with the world.

Thanks,

Ken Ham

Read More

ACLU Needs Legislation to Protect Its Anti-God Religion

Around the World with Ken Ham

Wake up Christians! When the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is successful in getting the Ten Commandments out of public places and the teaching of creation, the Bible, and prayer out of public schools, they did not get religion out. They just replaced the Christian religion with their religion of atheism. They are involved in this effort again, this time in Ohio, as a Fox News report explains:

A proposal by an Ohio school district to add creationism to a list of controversial topics deemed appropriate for classroom discussion has ignited a debate over the separation of church and state among parents and a civil rights group.

The Springboro Board of Education took comments on the proposal at a meeting Thursday night attended by parents, students and teachers. Some parents urged the board to abandon the plan, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio sent a letter to the board, saying the policy would violate the separation of church and state. [Read more at this link.]

I get so tired of reading the same old misrepresentations and false information from the ACLU and secular media (even from Fox News, which is less hostile towards Christianity) when it comes to the creation-evolution issue in public schools.

AiG is not a political action group, and we have never been directly involved in trying to get creation mandated in public schools. Nonetheless, we do help equip people with the correct way to think about this origins issue, and many of these people then try to influence their local school boards. The ACLU continues to intimidate educators in order to mandate that their anti-God religion of atheism be protected in the public schools. They recognize that if students were taught to think critically about the evidence against evolution, and if teachers were given the academic freedom to allow students to have a class discussion on whether creation is a viable alternative, many of these students would realize that the anti-God religion of evolution and atheism is bankrupt, and they might consider the Bible’s history instead—and the gospel based in that history.

Romans chapter 1 makes it clear that the knowledge of God is written on our hearts. God is so evident from looking at the creation that anyone who doesn’t believe is without excuse (Romans 1:20). That’s why the atheists have to work so hard to try to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18). The best way for them to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” is to brainwash people with an arbitrary definition of science and then legislate to protect their arbitrary definition—one that eliminates God and any discussion of His Word from the classroom. In this spiritual battle, they are being used to capture the hearts and minds of millions of children away from God.

The news report quoted as follows:

“Basically they would be teaching creationism to counteract the teaching of evolution,” ACLU spokesman Nick Worner said Friday. “Anytime that you promote or teach the beliefs of one religion over all other religions or beliefs in a public school classroom, that’s a problem.”

The Bible makes it clear there is no neutral position: “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad” (Matthew 12:30). We need to understand that the ACLU does want one religion taught over another—they want the religion of atheism imposed on students. And in reality, this is what is happening throughout the public education system.

In one of the biology textbooks used in the public schools, we read that “supernatural explanations of natural events are simply outside the bounds of science.” This is an arbitrary definition by those people who don’t believe in God. Thus they have defined science to eliminate God. Therefore they claim one can’t allow the God of the Bible or the teaching of creation in schools, as it is not science—but they have defined “science” to accomplish their agenda.

Christians need to wake up and realize that the ACLU has defined science as naturalism—that is their anti-God, arbitrary definition. The news report also states the following:

In the ACLU letter, Legal Director James Hardiman said the proposal appears to establish the teaching of creationism as an opposing view to evolution, pitting a religious theory against science.

Again, they are intimidating people by their own definition of the word science.The root meaning of science is knowledge. But the ACLU doesn’t want people to know that knowledge about the past (history) is very different from knowledge gained by observation (operational science). AiG helps people understand the difference by teaching an understanding of historical science (e.g., origins) compared to observational science (using the five senses to observe and repeatedly test results).

Molecules-to-man evolution is a belief—a religion—and it comes under the heading of historical science.

Reading the creation account as revealed in Genesis is also a part of practicing historical science. However, what is called natural selection and speciation (which do not confirm molecules-to-man evolution but instead confirm distinct kinds, as the Bible teaches in Genesis) is observational science. And whether people are creationists or evolutionists, we all have the same observational science—but very different historical sciences.

The bottom line is that the ACLU doesn’t want people to know this crucial difference. They arbitrarily define science as having nothing to do with the supernatural. Thus they define the terms, brainwash, and intimidate so they can “suppress the truth” of a Creator and impose their anti-God, atheistic religion on the public schools.

Watch the short, well-illustrated video at this link to understand the difference between historical and observational science.

Let’s get this message out to the media (some reporters may listen) and to parents and students. Let’s try to overcome the brainwashing of the secularists and the intimidation of the ACLU as they continue to impose their religion on the culture—including millions of children.

As a result of what we have experienced at AiG with the media over the years, we know that the secular media (even Fox News) usually doesn’t invite guests who have the experience and knowledge (such as our speakers and researchers at AiG) to correctly discuss the origins issue in regard to public schools. And when we are invited to participate, we are often given just a couple of minutes in some sort of debate format. Of course, this does not allow time for the topic to be dealt with in a manner that would logically lay out the case before the public. I often listen to news hosts (as I did in regard to this current Ohio news story) pooling their ignorance as they discuss matters outside their understanding.

Thus, the public is not educated on the evolution-creation issue as they need to be. And sadly, most pastors don’t have the background and experience to know how to correctly educate their congregations on such issues, so they are not equipped to stand publicly and defend the Christian faith against such secular onslaughts—as Christians must be doing in our increasingly secularized Western world.

Sadly, the secular media usually doesn’t want people like those of us at AiG to fully explain the problems with evolution. And if we ever do get an interview on, let’s say, Fox News, the media usually has someone opposing what we say and only lets us have a short time to say anything. Now, when evolutionists have some “discovery” to share with the media, it’s rare that a creationist group is asked to comment. It’s almost impossible to get the truth out unless someone in the secular media actually wants us to explain our position and gives us the time to do so. Many times I have spoken to a reporter who is writing an article on origins topics, and even though I take the time to explain it all, usually the information people need does not appear in the final piece. Most secularists in the media don’t want people to know the truth—by and large they just want controversy and not to let Bible-believing Christians be seen as credible. It’s a sad but realistic state of affairs.

Finally, today in America is Memorial Day. It’s a time to reflect on the sacrifice of so many in the U.S. Armed Forces who have died while in service to their country. Their defense of freedom has helped preserve America’s religious freedom, even as secularists try to undermine the First Amendment’s guarantee that no laws will prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Read More

Around the World with Ken Ham

Hobby Lobby and Obamacare


Posted: 19 Jan 2013 06:39 AM PST


Many of you have been following the lawsuit that the Hobby Lobby corporation has filed against the Obama administration. Under the new health care mandate, Hobby Lobby, a retail chain of arts/crafts stores, is required to offer health insurance that provides abortion-inducing drugs (abortifacients) to its employees. (For a detailed discussion of how so-called “emergency contraceptives” work, in contrast to ordinary contraceptive pills, read this News to Note article by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/01/12/news-to-note-01122013#five).

Now, the owners of Hobby Lobby are standing their ground and have sued the federal government. Hobby Lobby founder and CEO David Green and his family have said that by being forced to offer insurance that provides abortifacients, their religious beliefs are being violated. The fines for not complying with the Obamacare mandate are about $1.3 million per day. Hobby Lobby asked that any fines be delayed until the court proceedings were over, but Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied the request.

A recent news report (www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/blog/2013/01/11/hobby-lobby-vs-health-care-law) said that Hobby Lobby has found a way to delay by a few months the January 1 requirement to comply with the health care mandate. This is good news for Hobby Lobby—but it still doesn’t solve the issue of what’s at stake with regard to religious freedom in the US.

Sadly, what is happening to Hobby Lobby doesn’t bode well for Christians in general. Joel Belz in World magazine (www.worldmag.com/mobile/article.php?id=24863) recently wrote, “If all this is not a blatant denial of an American citizen’s freedom to exercise his or her deeply help religious beliefs, it’s hard to imagine what the federal government might do to be offensive.” And that’s a legitimate concern to have.

You see, if Hobby Lobby is forced by the federal government to act in ways that violate the owners’ convictions concerning the authority of Scripture, what will stop the government from forcing churches and individual believers to act against what God’s Word says?

Scripture tells us that we’ll experience persecution for the sake of Christ:


If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, “A servant is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. (John 15:18–21)

I applaud the Green family’s bold stand for the truth of God’s Word when it comes to the lives of unborn babies, and their stand for God’s Word will likely come at great cost to their organization. Please pray for them as they publicly stand for their biblical convictions. I pray that other Christians will be prepared to stand as they have done.

Actually, all companies and organizations are affected by this Obamacare mandate. Answers in Genesis is also working with our legal representatives to do what needs to be done legally in regard to this vital issue.

Please pray for AiG and other organizations as we also have to confront this sad issue head on.

For our eye-opening commentary on the abortion decision handed down 40 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court (called Roe v. Wade), read: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/01/18/roe-v-wade-40-years-later.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Note: Steve Golden assisted in the preparation of this blog item.

Read More

Around the World with Ken Ham

---

Roe v. Wade Month—Part One Posted: 16 Jan 2013 08:35 AM PST The 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is this month (the case was decided on January 22, 1973), and Time magazine’s cover story for the January 14, 2013, issue claims, “40 Years Ago, Abortion-Rights Activists Won an Epic Victory with Roe v. Wade—They’ve Been Losing Ever Since.” But how true is this claim? You know, there are many states that have passed laws requiring women seeking an abortion to first submit to a waiting period, counseling, parental consent (in the case of underage girls), or even an ultrasound. You can view a chart from our Answers magazine that details which states have which requirements, as well as any contested state laws, on this article. Sadly, however, the number of abortions performed each year seems to be remaining consistent. You see, the National Right to Life’s statistics show that since Roe v. Wade was passed, more than 1.2 million abortions have been performed in the U.S. each year. The total number of abortions performed since Roe v. Wade is more than 54 million. That’s 54 million human beings who have been brutally murdered before birth—since 1973.   By the way—that’s almost three times the population of my homeland of Australia—really puts it in perspective, doesn’t it? Now, last year, Answers magazine published an interview with Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association. He explained clearly why Christians should speak out against abortion: In 1973, when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, the court said that if it could ever be proved that the unborn is a person, it would be a gamechanger. That’s why AFA has been promoting personhood amendments. We want to see that question come before the U.S. Supreme Court again now that we have this new medical technology. . . . We need to keep our hands to the plow. There’s nowhere else for us to go to start over; this is it. We cannot abandon our role in the culture, including politics and government. . . . The main thing is that we shouldn’t give up or take the attitude that our vote doesn’t matter because to disengage or not participate or take a fatalistic attitude is to give up on God. God can send revival to our land. And while I agree that believers must not abandon their place in our culture and that we must oppose abortion, I believe abortion is only the symptom of a bigger problem. For many years, I’ve said that even if we managed to change the laws about abortion, the culture would just change them back, if it continues to look to man’s word for ultimate authority instead of God’s Word. You see, evolutionary ideas have destroyed the basis for the dignity of human life, which says that man is made in God’s image. Think about it—if you get rid of spare cats, then why not get rid of spare kids? After all, we’re just animals in this evolutionary world! Sadly, that’s really what generations of kids are being taught. By way of contrast, the evolutionary contention that man is only an animal provides no moral basis to oppose the murder of the unborn. So, what can we do to stop abortion? That’s for tomorrow’s blog post. For more information on the issue of abortion, I encourage you to read Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell’s (AiG–U.S.) articles: Semantics Don’t Change Truth Embryo Protection Also, return to our website on Friday morning for another commentary on the Roe v. Wade anniversary—it will be our lead article. Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying, Ken

Read More

Beware of Those Who Want the Church to Compromise

Around the World with Ken Ham

Over the years, I have noticed that more and more churches and Christian colleges are compromising on Genesis with evolution/millions of years. Recently, I blogged about an article in Christianity Todaywhere the author discussed Dr. Darrel Falk’s life and how he attempts to reconcile evolutionary ideas with the Bible. Dr. Falk is a professor of biology at Point Loma Nazarene University in California—a Christian college.

In my previous blog post, I discussed the impact of evolutionary ideas on Dr. Falk’s beliefs and how he now influences students toward evolutionary thinking in his role as a professor in a Christian college. Well, now I want to look at how Dr. Falk is attempting to influence the church.

Dr. Falk became the president of BioLogos in December of 2009. BioLogos is known for promoting “evolutionary creation,” which as I said before is really just another name for theistic evolution. BioLogos has tried to convince the church that evolution/millions of years can and should be mixed with Scripture. In the Christianity Today article, Dr. Falk gives readers his perspective on finding truth in Scripture:


We must be patient with each other and allow each other to follow truth as we see it in Scripture. . . . We must recognize that we will never reach the point where we all see Scripture the same way. When there is division in the church, it will be difficult for the thirsty to find their way to Jesus.

Now, there are some things in the Bible that Christians legitimately disagree on, but Genesis should not be one of them. The creation account is not ambiguous or hard to understand. It is perfectly clear that God created the universe by speaking and that He did it all in six literal days. That doesn’t mean that we should not be gracious toward one another, but we have to expose error when we see it.

What Dr. Falk and BioLogos are arguing is that Scripture is not trustworthy enough to communicate our origins accurately—at least not without the addition of evolution/millions of years—and that any claim to a single interpretation of Genesis will negatively impact those trying “to find their way to Jesus.” And yet I’ve received countless testimonies over the years from people who doubted they could trust the Bible because of what they’d been taught about evolution/millions of years, but have come to faith in Christ after hearing our speakers explain how Genesis is a literal account of creation and having their faith in the trustworthiness of God’s Word restored.

Of course, believing in six literal days of creation and a young earth are not essential for salvation. But it is an authority issue! In other words, can we trust the authority of God’s Word, and can man’s fallible word be used in authority over the Word of God! Professors like Dr. Falk may preach the gospel, but sadly, they are undermining the authority of the Word of God and this is having a devastating effect on the current and former generations they influence.

Over the last few months, BioLogos has featured essays from outside writers that call into question some of BioLogos’s views:


Falk has held to his plea for Christians to love and respect each other while advocating different points of view. In bearing this out, BioLogos recently invited a number of Southern Baptist biblical scholars to publish essays critical of the BioLogos perspective on the BioLogos website, in order to foster mutual understanding.

So far, the scholars who have contributed essays are Kenneth Keathley, William Dembski, James Dew, John Hammet, and Bruce Little. In regard to this series, Kenneth Keahtley said, “They [BioLogos] need to hear from us on the nature of Scripture, the nature of the fall and of salvation. And we need to hear from them on the nature of modern science,” (Travis Loller, “Scientists, seminarians debate evolution online,” Kansas City Star, www.kansascity.com/2012/07/18/3711292/evangelical-scientists-debate.html).

But I’m not so sure that the positions the contributors hold are all that different from BioLogos’s beliefs,because not one of the contributors has come out in strong support of a young earth or a literal reading of the creation account in Genesis. In fact, Kenneth Keathley, professor of theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and William Dembski, professor in culture and science at Southern Evangelical Seminary, both hold to an old-earth. Not only does Dembski believe in millions of years, and death and suffering before the Fall, he proposes a theodicy to show how those who believe in millions of years—and death and suffering happening before sin—could fit that with the Bible’s teaching that death came after sin. In that theodicy, he suggests that the first people could have had a sort of amnesia about their alleged ancestry from ape-like creatures: “Moreover, once God breathes the breath of life into them, we may assume that the first humans experienced an amnesia of their former animal life” (The End of Christianity, p. 155).

Another one of the contributors, John Hammet, professor of Systematic Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote in his essay (biologos.org/blog/evolutionary-creationism-and-the-imago-dei), “In the area of science, to call me a novice would be a kindness, so to question their [BioLogos’s] evaluation of the scientific evidence for the evolutionary process would be inappropriate for me.” Hammet’s statement is problematic because it assumes that only a scientist can make a judgment about evolution, even though God’s Word in Genesis is a true record of origins, and any Christian can use what it clearly teaches to judge man’s evolutionary beliefs.

James Dew, assistant professor of the history of ideas and philosophy at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote, “While we admit that there is some evidence that points in this direction [toward evolution], we are not convinced that evolution is the best explanation of all the evidence that needs to be considered.” That’s not very convincing support at all for a young earth or a literal Genesis.

What’s really happening here is that BioLogos is willing to tolerate any view except a dogmatic literal 6-day young earth creation view. Dr. Falk said of the Southern Baptist Voices series, “I don’t think our differences are anywhere near as great as people might have thought.” (www.kansascity.com/2012/07/18/3711292/evangelical-scientists-debate.html) And in the case of a number of the contributors, their differences aren’t that great—because they, like the people at BioLogos, have compromised on Genesis—or at least leave the door open to differing views to allow for evolution and/or millions of years.

Despite attempts to minimize the differences between biblical creationists and old-earth creationists or theistic evolutionists, the theological problems created by such attempts to harmonize the Bible with billions of years are indeed significant. The order of events in Genesis 1 often have to be rearranged to accommodate such views, and those who wish to mesh evolution with the Bible must accept that there was death, suffering, diseases like cancer, and even thorns before the Fall—but all those things are a result of sin! The Scripture is explicit that thorns came after the Curse. How could God call cancer “very good”?

Dr. Falk and the other members at BioLogos have continued to try to reconcile these differences, with programs designed to help pastors teach their congregations about evolution/millions of years and courses for any Christian who wants to mesh these ideas with Scripture.

While we should be gracious toward one another in these matters, we cannot sacrifice truth in the name of unity. As Christians, we must teach authoritatively what Genesis says—that God created in six literal days—and that Scripture can be trusted to teach us the truth about our origins.

We must “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3) and actively oppose those who propose views that directly undermine the authority of the Word of God and place man’s fallible ideas in authority over God’s infallible Word.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken Ham

(I wish to acknowledge the research assistance of Steve Golden in the writing of this blog item.)

Read More