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 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 Ashby L. Camp on January 28, 2015 […]
This paper is a response to the biblical criticisms recently leveled by Bruce Gordon against young-earth creationism. It explains why his arguments against a young-earth creationist understanding of the Creation Week, the origin and age of mankind, the consequences of the Fall, the extent of Noah’s Flood, and the scope of the judgment over the Tower of Babel are unpersuasive. Gordon shows little proficiency in the grammatical-historical approach he rebukes young-earth creationists for not properly employing. He routinely advances dubious and historically anomalous interpretations of Scripture while pronouncing his approach sophisticated and that of young-earth creationists naïve.
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 →
The creation account of Gen 1 ends with the declaration, “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen 1:31 ESV). The key issue boils down to what is meant by the expression “very good.” Old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists agree that this is the issue about which they have the most disagreement. More than the proper interpretation of Gen 1-3, the age of the earth, or even the theory of evolution, this is the question that stands above all others: Did animals die before Adam and Eve fell in the Garden?
The fossil record presents us with a troubling past. It reveals a history of predation, disease, and intrinsic selfishness. The problem of immense suffering in the natural world was not lost on Darwin. Continue reading →
Recently my brother Stephen was able to talk with a professor of church history about a very important aspect of American church history, the Crawford Toy controversy. This controversy, involving liberal teaching from an Old Testament interpretation and languages professor, was one of the first instances of major influence in the church from uniformitarian and Darwinian philosophies. Here is a quick account of Stephen’s conversation on this important topic, but be sure to listen to the full Answers Conversation episode (part 1 and part 2). The program is also available for download as a podcast and RSS feed. 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. Elizabeth Mitchell on January 3, 2015
News to Know covered many topics in 2014, but, really, there’s nothing new under the sun when it comes to countering evolutionist claims.
Every week News to Know features articles about science in the news. Our analyses help readers distinguish between fascinating scientific discoveries and unverifiable evolutionary assumptions, between discoveries that truly enhance our understanding of the world and worldview-based conclusions that perpetuate an imaginative view of the past.
We would like to wrap up 2014 with a practical lesson about how to distinguish observable science from evolutionary presumptions in the popular press. To that end, we’ll start by examining a paragraph from a recent item in the Wall Street Journal, Nicholas Wade’s book review of Bill Nye’s book Undeniable entitled “Bill Nye the Darwin Guy”: 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 →
Someone on Facebook informed us early this morning that our Creation Museum was mocked last night on NBC TV’s popular Saturday Night Live program. I never watch this broadcast, but we went online and found the segment. On a mock news set, two people in matching Christmas sweaters were interviewed by the mock newscaster about their Hanukkah songs. At one stage, they say the following to the “newsman”:
We came all the way from the Creation Museum—Moses had a dinosaur, did you know that? . . . Did you know that?
Here is the link to the mocking segment, appearing at about 3:25. It’s not really worth watching—the entire skit was not that funny and you have to watch a commercial before you see it, but you can watch it here. Continue reading →
I wanted to share a very exciting nine-minute video with you that offers an update of what is happening with the construction of our life-size Noah’s Ark (south of Cincinnati).
After my wife and I returned from our visit with family in Australia, I interviewed one of the project managers for the Ark and our VP of attractions. Even though I have been intimately involved with this project, I gained some fascinating insights into what has gone into the planning of the engineering and architectural work. I was also amazed to see how much work has been done since I toured the site the last time and as we get ready for the timber construction of the Ark itself (to occur in the first half of next year). Continue reading →
The Lexington Herald-Leader is one of the major Kentucky newspapers. For years, it has spread untruths and misleading information about Answers in Genesis and our life-size Noah’s Ark project. (The Ark will be built north of the paper’s offices in Lexington.)
I suggest that the editors of the Herald-Leader have an anti-Christian agenda. It has resulted in inaccuracies in its stories and editorials concerning the Ark project. The paper constantly denigrates the Christian ministry of AiG and regularly attacks the Ark project in order to undermine it to the general public. Their intolerance of anything Christian is so obvious that some Lexington residents have said to me, “we call it the Lexington Herald-Misleader.” 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 →
In this four-minute video, I personally respond to the state of Kentucky’s recent decision about the Ark Encounter. I also counter what the secular media and bloggers have been claiming about the Ark project. Continue reading →
State officials announce unlawful basis for denial of tax rebates
on December 11, 2014
This is the news release that was sent to the national media and has been slightly adapted for the web.
Bowing to pressure by secularist groups outside the state, Kentucky officials announced late Wednesday a decision to deny the Ark Encounter theme park an opportunity to participate in a popular tax rebate incentive program offered by the state’s tourism office.
By letter on Dec. 10, state officials told the theme park’s developer, Answers in Genesis (AiG), that the only way AiG could participate in the rebate program is if AiG would agree to two conditions: 1) waive its right to include a religious preference in hiring, and 2) affirm that it will tolerate no “proselytizing” at the theme park.
AiG has countered that the state’s new conditions are unlawful because it is well-established under both federal law (Title VII) and state law (KRS § 344.090) that religious organizations and entities like AiG are specifically permitted to utilize a religious preference in their hiring. Continue reading →
by Dr. Andrew Snelling and Tom Vail […]
The Grand Canyon is one of the world’s most awesome erosional features. It is 277 miles (446 km) long, including the 60 miles (96 km) of Marble Canyon upstream. The depth of the main segment of the Grand Canyon varies between 3,000 and 6,000 feet (900 and 1,800 m), with the rim-to-rim width between 4 and 18 miles (6 and 29 km). Its origin has plagued geologists since the time of John Wesley Powell’s first courageous voyage down the Colorado River in 1869. Despite an increase in knowledge about its geology, evolutionary geologists have yet been unable to explain the canyon.1
Into What Was the Grand Canyon Carved?
Before discussing when and how the Grand Canyon was formed, it is first important to understand where and through what geologic feature it was carved. Continue reading →