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 Ken Hamrick
In the ongoing debate over the Genesis creation account, one supposed problem that seems particularly troublesome for many is the question of the length of a day prior to the creation of the sun (on Day 4). Since the sun is the means by which a day is usually measured, then it is objected by Old-Earthers that we are left without any sure understanding of what God might possibly mean by the term, “day,” when it is used to describe the first three days of creation. Here’s the text:
Genesis 1 ESV
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. Continue reading
We are offering all teachers and educators an opportunity to earn a CEU while learning to defend God’s Word in the classroom. Get answers for yourself and your students at this year’s Answers for Teachers conference.
This exciting, information-packed event is being held at the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky on February 20, 2015, from 8 AM to 6 PM. You will hear from AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom, Dr. Terry Mortenson, Dr. Andrew Snelling, Dr. David Mention, Dan Lietha, Tim Chaffey, and Bryan Osborne. During the seven sessions you will learn about cell biology, evidence for a young earth, ape-men, the Resurrection, and so much more!
by Ken Hamrick
Old-Earth Creationists, who accept the evidence-based claims that the earth is billions of years old, ought to honestly acknowledge that their view does not rest on natural evidence, but upon their own prior skeptical denial of creation by divine fiat (or, command). It is dishonest to put forth such a view as being based on the evidence. Without first denying that a miraculous creation by fiat might have occurred, they would have no basis for giving weight to any natural evidence. This doesn’t mean that they have properly thought this out and realized that they must first deny the plausibility of a miraculous creation by fiat; rather, for most of them, their preconceived skeptical denial remains unrecognized, like a hidden assumption.
To answer the question, How long ago did God create the world?, they immediately look—as a matter of course—to what the scientific evidence ‘reveals.’ Ostensibly, this supposes to give equal weight to all sources of truth, whether God’s revelation in Scripture or God’s revelation in the physical world (nature). However, the bias of the scales toward nature becomes evident: whenever the two (the plain reading of Scripture and natural evidence) seem to contradict, they never opt for reinterpreting natural evidence in light of the inerrant Scripture, but always insist on reinterpreting Scripture in light of the inerrant natural evidence (at least where creation is concerned). 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 →
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 Dr. Terry Mortenson on December 22, 2014
Recently, Dr. Jonathan Hill, professor of sociology at Calvin College, published on the BioLogos website the results of his national survey of 3,000 American adults to study the beliefs of Americans on issues related to human origins. The summary of his research is entitled “The Recipe for Creationism.”1 His research was done to see if previous surveys done by Gallup and others over the past few decades were giving us an accurate picture of what Americans believe.
Those other studies, the most recent published by Gallup in June 2014, have indicated consistently over the past 30 years that
- about 45% of Americans believe that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so,”
- about 35% believe that “human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life and God guided this process,”
- about 20% believe that “human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life but God had no part in this process.”2
Those statistics are challenged by Hill’s new research.
Let me say at the outset of my analysis that Dr. Hill and the other people associated with BioLogos are undoubtedly kind and sincere Christians. Continue reading →
In an interview with NewsMax, Bill Nye “The Science Guy” claimed that denying evolution is something that is unique to the United States and that the controversy is not a “problem anywhere else.” Now, he said this probably because America has access to more apologetics resources to support the biblical creation position than any other place in the world. Also, Answers in Genesis and our Creation Museum, the largest apologetics ministry in the world, are based out of the US. Due to the availability of resources, Americans are generally the best informed about apologetics issues, so we would expect more people to understand the issues correctly, thus it’s no surprise that Nye is saying this. But is evolution and an old earth really just being challenged in America? Not at all! If Nye was thinking of the Answers in Genesis ministry when he said this, I wonder if he realizes that I actually began the ministry in Australia (my homeland). And now AiG and many other creation ministries are working to get out creation resources all around the world. Continue reading →
A study conducted by a group of University of Alabama researchers has been making its way around the Internet, so I wanted to comment on it. This study highlights that the creation/evolution controversy is really a worldview-based battle.
This study was an attempt to discover the role of religious belief in the acceptance of evolution. According to the study’s results, religious persons are far less likely than those who claim to be non-religious to accept evolution, regardless of how much evolutionary education they have. One of the coauthors of the study commented, “Religion is much more important than all the other measured educational variables, combined, in influencing their views on evolution.” Religion has such an impact on belief in evolution that, after exposure to evolution in college classes, “The only group of students who improved in their acceptance of evolution was the group of students who were the least religious.” Continue reading →
by Dr. Jason Lisle and Mike Riddle […]
The Bible instructs believers to have answers when challenged by any and all who oppose the Word of God.
A football coach recruited the best defensive players he could find. His strategy was to have the best defense in the conference. All through the season the opposing teams were unable to score many points. When the season was over his team posted a record of zero wins, ten losses, and two ties. How could this happen? The answer is they had no offense.
A Christian Game Plan
This is where many Christians are in their efforts to witness to unbelievers. The Bible instructs believers to have answers when challenged by any and all who oppose the Word of God (defense—1 Peter 3:15). The Bible also instructs believers to bring down all strongholds and anything that exalts itself against the knowledge of God (offense—2 Corinthians 10:4–5). Sadly, while many Christians lack the knowledge to challenge unbelievers (offense), they also lack a defense. 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 →
Contrary to popular opinion, Charles Darwin did not invent the theory of biological evolution. But his famous work, The Origin of Species, certainly gave impetus to an idea that would quickly become orthodoxy in the scientific establishment. In his work he made several significant points that have had profound consequences for how scientists understand the natural world. Darwin did not merely suggest that change takes place over time, which, technically speaking, may be called evolution (though many would prefer to use the word “adaptation,” as opposed to “evolution,” to describe changes within a given species). Rather, he questioned the concept that species are immutable (i.e., cannot change). Continue reading →
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on November 20, 2014
Did your cat evolve to like you?
Science: The genes that turned wildcats into kitty cats
Feral felines and domestic cats are all capable carnivores. Scientists have now identified some of the genes that equip them to be great predators as well as genes that make domestic varieties content to share your affection and your home with your dog. (Perhaps I need to share this study with my dog, who is less than pleased with the arrangement.)
Geneticist Michael Montague and colleagues compared the genomes of domestic cats to wildcats. They examined the genomes of 22 different domestic cats from around the world and 4 wildcats (2 European wildcats and 2 Eastern wildcats). They also compared these cat genomes to the genomes of tigers, dogs, cows, and humans.
Since all of these are mammals designed to live in the same world, it is not surprising that they have many genes in common. 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
It’s no secret that government schools in the United States and around the world mostly teach that the earth has existed for billions of years, that people evolved from ape-like creatures, and that human life has no purpose or meaning greater than the life of an animal. As Christians, we need to teach our children about God and His creation as the Bible declares it and the truth of the Scriptures from the very first verse.
Since most of our readers don’t get the American Atheist magazine delivered to their homes, I thought I’d share with you what atheists are saying about our coverage of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s TV series Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey. Claiming “Cosmos is far from controversial”* and saying “creationists are scrambling to create a monster to demonize,”** the author of “Preferring Fear to Understanding” zeroes in on a Bible-believing parent’s decision to opt out of showing one of the Cosmos episodes—“The Immortals” to his son. The article, like the episode, claims the Epic of Gilgamesh is the original flood story, differing from the biblical account of Noah only by being older. Continue reading →
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
During an October 28 meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held in the Vatican, Pope Francis said, “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve,” according to The Telegraph. He also asserted that the Big Bang “doesn’t contradict the intervention of a divine Creator, but demands it.”1 If the Pope says it’s okay for Catholics to embrace the Big Bang and evolution, does that settle the controversy?
Those who simply take the Pope’s words as authoritative may find no reason to doubt his recent assertions, but attempts to square Pope Francis’ statements with science or the Bible will encounter some serious red flags. 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 →