This article was also published at SBC Voices
by Ken Hamrick
Recently, I came across a paper in the Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry, written by Dr. Kenneth Keathley in 2013, entitled, “Confessions of a Disappointed Young-Earther.” The piece is well done and gives an informative summary of the various arguments and supposed problems of the Young-Earth Creationism movement. After reading it, I must say that I’m just as disappointed as Dr. Keathley, but for different reasons. I’m disappointed that the enemy, who is delegitimizing the truth-claims of Christianity by undermining the authority of Scripture, is often met with so little resistance and so much well-meant, reasonable-sounding cooperation. I’m disappointed that not even the best among us are immune from a skeptical evidentialism. And I’m disappointed that one so capable of competent reason would falter in thinking that evidence has bearing on the question of a recent miraculous creation.
I’m no scientist, and I do not claim to be able to present all the scientific intricacies of the various arguments. To be fair, there do seem to be some valid points brought against Young-Earth “creation science” and even a few points in support of it. Nevertheless, I do not argue for a “young” earth, but for an old earth recently created—what Dr. Keathley presents as Philip Henry Gosse’s “Omphalos argument” or the mature earth view. The Bible clearly and explicitly reveals a recent creation by divine fiat. Miracles being what they are, we should not expect to find proof in physical evidences for this recent miraculous act. But, neither should we expect the secular scientific view to be free from error, overconfidence, and overreaching. Ultimately, though, the scientific argument is irrelevant to the vital question at hand—and that fact is sadly missed by Young-Earthers and Old-Earthers alike. Continue reading
by Jim Pemberton
A couple of weeks ago Justin Taylor posted an article entitled “Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods”. Since that time, many have posted articles refuting Justin’s arguments. In this article I will post links to some of the ones I know about and make a couple of observations myself.
First, let me start off by saying that in general I respect Justin. He’s a well-reasoned man of good character and genuinely strives for biblical accuracy. I just think he missed the mark on this one. Nevertheless, his article seems to have given many of us the incentive to hash this issue out. Continue reading
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Every generation of believers must settle for itself the core questions of ultimate origins. Where did everything come from? Can God’s account of beginnings in Genesis be trusted as actually history? The year 2014 illustrated that this generation is still interested in answers. If nothing else, recent events make it clear that Christians remain divided and passionate about origins.
Billed as a kind of debate of the century, Bill Nye defended evolution and Ken Ham defended creation during a February event that millions viewed online.1 Long afterward, discussions swirled over who may have won the debate. The number of viewers was unexpectedly large, showing that national interest in origins has not waned. It seems that people still want to know if humans really evolved through billions of years of birth, death, and mutation, or if they descended only thousands of years ago from one man and one woman in an originally “very good” creation. Continue reading →
This month, the pastor of one of the largest churches in Northern Kentucky (and close to our Creation Museum) is conducting a teaching series going through Genesis 1–11 for the congregation. This is the same church that will be hosting our annual Mega Conference, June 24–27. I was present at the service when Pastor Corey Abney1 (the lead pastor) introduced the Genesis series to the congregation. I thought his introduction was excellent (watch it at the video link below), and it could be used to challenge pastors, Bible teachers, and others to consider teaching through Genesis 1–11. We live in an age when the authority of God’s Word has come under attack, particularly the first book of the Bible. We also need to equip this current generation of young people to defend the Christian faith against the secular attacks of our day.
I encourage you to watch Pastor Abney’s short but powerful introduction to his teaching series on Genesis 1–11. I pray many more Christian leaders will be challenged and inspired to stand on God’s Word beginning in Genesis. Continue reading →
By Ken Ham […]
An aura of mystery surrounds the dinosaurs. Where did they come from? Did they evolve? Did they really live millions of years ago? What happened to them? Are there any living today? Has any human being ever seen a live dinosaur?
Children and adults alike are absolutely fascinated by these mysterious monsters. Numerous books and movies have been produced to satisfy a seemingly insatiable hunger for information on these puzzling creatures. The truth of the matter, however, is that there are no real mysteries at all, once you have key information that is not generally known and is withheld from the public.
Come with me as we take a walk through history and uncover some amazing facts that will answer many of your questions about these “terrible lizards.”
Did Dinosaurs Really Exist?
Dinosaurs certainly did roam the Earth in the ancient past! Fossils of dinosaurs have been found all over the world, and their bones are displayed in museums for all to see. Scientists have been able to reconstruct many of their skeletons, so we know much about how they may have looked. Continue reading →
by Mike Matthews […]
Within the first three minutes of the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate, it was obvious how radically the creation-evolution debate has changed since the 1970s and 1980s.
When Bill Nye “the Science Guy” quipped that creationism is not appropriate for children, the video went viral on YouTube. Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, fired back a response, and the debate was on.
Eventually, a formal debate was announced, to be live streamed. The tickets for a seat at the event sold out within two minutes. On the day of the debate, millions of people linked in, and it became the top Twitter and Facebook trend of the day.
How times have changed!
During the heyday of creation-evolution debates in the 1970s and 1980s, none of this technology existed. The audiences attended brick-and-mortar buildings, or a few lucky people could tune into a local TV station.
Now anyone can join the debate live, and once it’s over, they can replay the whole thing at their convenience. Information is at our fingertips, instantly available in HD video.
More than technology has changed. The audience has changed, and so has our message. It’s no longer possible for Christians to assume common ground regarding the Bible and science. Continue reading →
by Jim Pemberton
We often hear about how science is based in reason, but we aren’t often taught precisely how this works. We know something of the scientific method, but we don’t know how it relates to logic. We only have some sense that it does. We have come to the part of this series on Science and Faith where I will discuss how the scientific method is based on deductive logic in general.
There’s no need in this series to handle all the various forms that the scientific method takes, so this will only be a general discussion. It will involve the common steps and how each works together to produce a reasonable conclusion. Continue reading
by Ken Hamrick
Apologist J. W. Wartick recently posted an article on his blog, entitled, “Do Young Earth Creationists Advocate Appearance of Age?” He is an Old-Earth Creationist who argues that appearance of age would be deception on God’s part. I disagree, and have been engaging him in discussion in the comment section. You might find it interesting, and you’re welcome to join the conversion.
by Ken Hamrick
When it comes to understanding the Bible, the intended meaning of the author ought to be held in such importance that the text is allowed to speak for itself—with every effort made to not read into the text ideas that were not intended—and to get our clues as to what was intended only from the text itself, rather than permitting ideas, claims, evidences and authorities from outside of the text to tell us what the text means. This is why we go by the axiom, If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense. When it tells us that Christ physically rose from the dead and left the tomb, we don’t allow science to weigh in and tell us that He must not have actually died, but only “swooned,” since dead bodies do not reanimate (CPR might work for a few minutes, but not three days after death). Certainly, science has a legitimate stake in the matter, since what is claimed is above and beyond all natural laws and a physical impossibility. Nevertheless, science must be ignored in this, since it is a supernatural matter outside of their ability to explain, detect, or prove. For us today, it is a matter of pure revelation—the eyewitnesses are dead and unavailable for examination. Continue reading
by Ken Ham on November 3, 2014
Over the years in the AiG ministry, particularly during the time we were constructing the Creation Museum and now as we are building a full-size Noah’s Ark, I have come across many ‘‘Sanballats.”
Today, I can’t help but think of how the analogy of Sanballat (a character from the book of Nehemiah) relates more than ever to the people who oppose AiG’s proclamation of the creation/gospel message. Let me explain.
When Nehemiah announced he was going to rebuild the wall around Jerusalem, the Bible records the following:
But when Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite official, and Geshem the Arab heard of it, they laughed at us and despised us, and said, “What is this thing that you are doing? Will you rebel against the king?” So I answered them, and said to them, “The God of heaven Himself will prosper us; therefore we His servants will arise and build, but you have no heritage or right or memorial in Jerusalem.” (Nehemiah 2:19–20)
When AiG announced the building of the Creation Museum several years ago, secularists did not hide the fact that they despised us for attempting to build a Bible-upholding project. Even some people in the church publicly spoke out against AiG. Continue reading →
A physicist and an astrobiologist team up to explain to medical doctors how knowledge of evolution holds the key to curing cancer.
Scientific American: Did Cancer Evolve to Protect Us?
Curing cancer is high on everyone’s wish list for the 21st century. Could the key be billions of year’s old? A National Cancer Institute project to “rethink cancer from the bottom up” has spawned a study asserting that oncologists need to seek the cancer cures for the present in clues from the evolutionary past.
Physicist Paul Davies and astrobiologist Charles Lineweaver believe that cancer cells are simply cells that have reverted to their evolutionary ancestral state to cope with the challenges they face. This is called an “atavistic” model. (Atavism means reversion to an ancient, primitive, or ancestral state. Continue reading →
Pope Francis is not the first religious leader who has endorsed evolution and the big bang, but he is certainly one of the most influential.
Following in the tradition of other recent popes, Pope Francis has compromised biblical authority in favor of man’s ideas in the area of origins. He said, “The Big Bang, that today is considered to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the creative intervention of God; on the contrary, it requires it. Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of [divine] creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve.”
About the account of creation in Genesis, the pope stated, “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so . . . Continue reading →
These are exciting times at AiG. The life-size Noah’s Ark project is moving ahead in leaps and bounds. This past week, the board of directors met at Answers in Genesis. They were given a detailed update on the Ark Encounter project, to be built off I-75 (between Cincinnati and Lexington, Kentucky). Because of the intense construction activity on the Ark site, the board members were taken on a helicopter tour of the Ark property to see the progress.
I have included a video below […] Continue reading →
Earlier this month, Bill Nye (TV’s famous “Science Guy”) appeared on Global News’s The Morning Show on October 1, 2014 and, speaking about people who believe in biblical creation, boldly predicted that “In another 20 years those guys will be just about out of business.” Other secularists (I recall some back in the 1970s) have made similar claims, like this one: “Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization . . . Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph.”* Will biblical creation be dead in 20 years? Will secularists be successful in stamping out the message of the true history of the world and replacing it with atheism? In a word—no. Biblical creation is going to outlive Bill Nye and others like him. Continue reading →
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, Dr. Georgia Purdom, and Dr. Tommy Mitchell on October 20, 2014
The Ebola epidemic in West Africa has already claimed over 4,000 lives—more than all previous Ebola epidemics combined—and it is showing no sign of slowing. The first (and we hope the only) Ebola death on American soil occurred in Dallas, Texas, on October 8, 2014. Two nurses who cared for that patient, Thomas Eric Duncan, soon developed Ebola. In Spain a nurse exposed in Madrid to a priest who contracted Ebola in Africa recently developed Ebola.1 These incidents represent the first time Ebola has been transmitted outside of Africa.
In the past, outbreaks have remained geographically confined to the regions where the organism that harbors them lives.2 Why is this one different? Is Ebola wielding the power of Darwinian evolution over medical science? Continue reading →
According to a science and religion blogger with the not-so-reliable Huffington Post, the evolution/creation debate is not about science or even the Bible—it’s about gay marriage! Well, that’s certainly news to me!
Writer Paul Wallace claims that he could never understand why creationists reject the “tsunami of unambiguous evidence that forces us to believe in a 14-billion-year-old cosmos; in a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth; and in the long slow evolution of creatures.” Of course, he doesn’t provide any of the scientific evidence that supposedly makes up this “tsunami of unambiguous evidence,” he just merely expects his readers to accept that this evidence is there. He then goes on to say that he suddenly realized why biblical creationists reject all the supposed “evidence”—it’s because the real issue is not science, it’s gay marriage. Continue reading →
I have been invited to dinner. BioLogos published an article this week with the following headline: Ken Ham, We Need a Better Conversation (Perhaps Over Dinner?)
But should I go to this proposed dinner?
Dr. Deborah Haarsma, president of the theistic evolution organization BioLogos, was responding to my recent blog about statements made by Dr. Hugh Ross (known for aggressively disseminating a compromise view of Genesis called progressive creation) on a Canadian talk show, where he was discussing his new book. (AiG writer/researcher Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell also published a review of Hugh Ross’s new book on our website.) Continue reading →
Dr. Hugh Ross’s Navigating Genesis: A Scientist’s Journey Through Genesis 1–11 is, sadly, a great tool for steering the uninformed and the gullible into a shipwreck of faith, not for removing stumbling blocks to faith as Dr. Ross misguidedly attempts. Guided by his devotion to the secular dating methods, Dr. Ross distorts the Bible’s claims about our origins and early history while misrepresenting much of the secular science from which he claims support. By Navigating Genesis with Dr. Hugh Ross, the casual reader—Christian or not—can be sure of emerging from his voyage laden with burdensome baggage: a chaotic mix of misapplied science, straw-man arguments, dubious apologetics, ignorance of what creation scientists actually claim, a creative but incorrect approach to reading the Word of God, and a bizarre re-interpretation of the Bible that bears little resemblance to what God actually says. In short, a reader seeking guidance from Dr. Ross, upon disembarking from Navigating Genesis, may well know less about secular science, less about the Bible, less about our history, and less about our Lord than before starting the ill-advised trip. Continue reading →
by Ken Hamrick
“Pssst! Eve! …Eve!” A strange voice called to her from the direction of the forbidden tree. They were not to even touch that tree, and now it was calling to her!? (Living in paradise without fear for safety), she confidently approached the tree. “Who is it?” she asked.
The high-pitched, raspy voice spoke again. “It is I, the serpent.”
“Where are you?” she asked as she moved closer to the tree.
“Look up here on the bottom branch,” said the serpent.
“Oh — I see you now!” said Eve. “You’re very beautiful — and you talk! Why do you talk? None of the other animals talk,” she inquired.
“I’m more intelligent than the other animals. My wisdom exceeds even yours.” The serpent resembled a snake, but with legs, and a bright, brilliantly-colored skin. (Before sin entered the world, there was no need for dull or concealing colors on animals). As he spoke of his wisdom, he picked a fruit from the branch and held it. Continue reading
The character of Christianity depends, in profound ways, on one’s beliefs concerning creation. For the first 250 years of the existence of the church in America, Christians assumed the truth of the doctrine of creation. It was revealed in the Bible and it made the most sense of the natural world. When large numbers of Christians rejected the doctrine in the 20th century, the results were astonishing.
The New England Puritans expressed their belief in creation in the confession of faith adopted in 1648 as part of the Cambridge Platform Continue reading