Ken Ham's Blog, page 393

Praise from an Unlikely Source

Gallup polls going back to the early 1980s have consistently shown that around 44 percent of Americans agree with the statement: “God created humans pretty much in their present form either exactly as the Bible describes it or within the last 10,000 years.” Of course, evolutionist activists are alarmed that the numbers remain so high, especially given their increasing evolution indoctrination seen in schools and the media (and museums).

The grassroots approach by creationist organizations to distribute materials and information throughout the country appears to have been an effective counter-effort to these evolutionists. One of the emphases I’ve always had at AiG is to pump out as much information as we can through the website, videos, radio programs, etc. Here is one example of how God is using the AiG ministry to impact the culture (AiG does not push legislation or going to court to bring about change), and the “testimony” comes from a surprising source. A supporter wrote the following to us:

Dear Ken,

I thought you might find this interesting. At the NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) conference on science education in Atlanta in November, there was a Friday afternoon talk by evolutionist Dr. Ken Miller of Brown University. During his presentation “Science under Siege? — Teaching evolution in a climate of controversy,” he said that Answers in Genesis had a nice website (he put it on the screen), and he also gave the location of your Creation Museum.

Interestingly, Dr. Miller also said (paraphrasing): “Ken Ham is the main reason that so many people believe in creation in the United States.”

I think you would like this statement.

I am so glad that you showed up in Missoula, Montana, some 20 years ago [for a “Back to Genesis” seminar]. It was at that time that I learned the science behind the Bible.

– W.Z., North Carolina

Well, there are a lot of people who work through the AiG ministry in different ways to impact this culture. Praise the Lord for all that is happening.

We expect evolutionists to be even more active in using museums, magazines, and schools to push their evolution religion/worldview with greater zeal. They read the same Gallup polls that we do and are alarmed. Since the 1980s, evolution indoctrination in schools has been pushed more aggressively than ever, and yet that Gallup figure has not changed much at all.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Does Evolution Hurt the Gospel? Part 2

Ever since I first started giving talks on the creation/evolution controversy and biblical authority, I’ve said that if our foundation in the church isn’t the Bible, from the very first verse, we’ll end up losing the culture. Well, the church (and certainly most of the leaders and academics) has (sadly) embraced evolution and millions of years more and more. And I would argue that the message of the gospel in those churches has been harmed as a result, as God’s Word has been undermined—and this has had a devastating effect on the culture as well.

Yesterday I wrote about one article in a series by Mike Beidler, a guest author with the Bible compromisers at BioLogos. He claimed that the Genesis account of creation is mythical and that believers today should not take it literally.

In another article, “Losing Our Savior,” Beidler further explains his position on Genesis. You know, I’ve often argued that if we can’t trust one part of the Bible (such as Genesis) then it raises doubts about many other parts of Scripture, including the reliability of the Gospel accounts—and often puts people on a slippery slide of unbelief.

But Beidler disagrees. Even though Genesis is not that much older than the Gospels, he falsely claims, “the life of Jesus as presented in the four Gospels is nothing like the etiological myths encountered in Genesis 1–11; we can safely treat the Gospels as a reliable source for knowing how the early Church viewed the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth . . . ” (emphasis mine).

So, the Gospels are reliable—but Genesis isn’t, despite the fact that Professor Steven Boyd has clearly shown through a detailed statistical analysis of the Hebrew language that Genesis is historical narrative? What a low view of inerrancy.

Of course, the next step in Beidler’s argument is to explain away Adam and Eve—and he does just that. He writes that sin is still a reality even without a historical Adam and Eve. “In fact,” he writes, “one could argue that evolutionary biology provides an even more powerful paradigm for explaining the source of mankind’s sinful nature in our day than the biblical text does.” Wow! There it is—evolution explains man’s sinful nature better than the Word of God, the Creator of the universe! And this is the nonsense that is pervading the church more and more—no wonder the church and the nation as a whole is in trouble.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, look at Beidler’s potential explanation for the origin of this sin nature in the evolutionary creationists’ worldview. He stated that “our inherited evolutionary baggage [was] borne [sic] of an instinctual (and once necessary) need to preserve one’s self by means of selfish acts.” Did you catch that? Our sinful nature supposedly had its origin in our evolutionary ancestral past, which, according to Beidler, was directed by God. If that is the case, then God is responsible for our sinful nature rather than our rebellion in a real Adam (and thus a real historical Fall).

Beidler’s treatment of the apostle Paul is just as bad. Now, Paul (and really, God through Paul, since this is the Word of God), treated Adam as a very real historical figure in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. You see, taking these Scriptures at face value, there is no doubt that Paul believed in a historical Adam. But Beidler explains away Paul’s statement, saying that Paul wasn’t trying to argue for a historical Adam—he was arguing for a “literal Savior.” He compares Paul’s use of Adam in that verse to a character in a parable—parables didn’t contain real people, so why should Paul’s statement?

But you know, the main problem with Beidler’s view is that, just as Genesis is clearly historical narrative, parables are clearly parables. Listeners then and readers now know that parables typically don’t contain historical figures. But Paul’s teaching in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 is not a parable! There’s no reason to think that he believed Adam was mythical. And besides, the first time the gospel is preached is in Genesis 3:15—if that is mythical, then the gospel itself is mythical.

Paul also referred to the literal creation and fall of Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2:13–14 while discussing ideas about authority in the church. He wrote, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” Once again, there is no doubt that Paul viewed Adam, Eve, and their sin as part of literal history. Are we supposed to assume that this passage was a parable as well?

Beidler even says that one should expect Paul to believe in a literal Adam and Eve due to his Jewish upbringing and Pharisaical training. However, the implication from Beidler is that Paul was mistaken, and he even cites Peter Enns as a source readers can check out “for other possible ways to understand Paul’s understanding of Adam.” In this other source, Enns argues that not only Paul, but also Jesus, accommodated the errors of their day. In other words, according to Enns, Jesus knowingly or unknowingly taught errors about the first man and woman. And I need to emphasize again—even though Paul wrote these passages being referred to—he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what God wanted to reveal to us. As we read in Thessalonians: “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

BioLogos has no way to defend these positions scripturally. What I think has happened here is that the people at BioLogos have approached the Bible with the requirement that evolution and millions of years must fit into Scripture. What Beidler is teaching here is not a viable alternative to biblical creation based on any kind of textual evidence. No, he’s attempting to use clever academic arguments and terms to subvert the authority of God’s Word so that man’s fallible, changing ideas are treated as the truth about our origins. It is the “Did God Really Say?” (Genesis 3:1) attack of the devil all over again.

You see, our ability to fully trust God’s promise of salvation relies upon our ability to trust everything He says about history from beginning to end. So it is right for believers to fear that the message of the gospel will be harmed by the view of theistic evolution and BioLogos. As I’ve said many times before, we can trust God’s Word, from the very first verse.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Is Genesis an “Etiological Account”? Part 1

Well, BioLogos is taking a new approach in its mission to teach Christians that evolution and millions of years can be mixed with the Bible. In a recent article series called “Confronting Our Fears,” guest author Mike Beidler attempts to show Christians that they should have no fears about losing biblical authority or the gospel, in an effort to help them feel better about accepting evolution and millions of years. Today and tomorrow, I want to show you some of Beidler’s arguments because, even though they aren’t new, Beidler is very honest about the implications of theistic evolution.

Beidler’s view places man’s word in authority over God’s Word—it adds to the decline of biblical authority that is so prevalent in today’s culture. But Beidler’s goal in this particular article, “Losing Biblical Authority,” is to lessen believers’ fears of losing biblical authority if they compromise on the Genesis account of creation.

Now, Beidler openly states that “the ‘literal sense’ of Genesis 1 . . . does in fact rule out cosmological and biological evolution” (I would add geological evolution to that). And he’s right—if we take God at His Word, then evolutionary ideas don’t fit. But Beidler has an argument for this:

But I would also ask the question of whether a “literary sense” of Genesis 1 allows for evolution. . . . I would also argue that a “literal” reading of Genesis 1, framed by our own modern paradigm, is unfaithful to the original intent of the author, and that we should take special care to read Genesis 1 “literarily” through the eyes of the ancient Hebrews, understanding what was (and wasn’t) important to them.

In other words, since taking Genesis at face value means the people at BioLogos would have to reject evolutionary ideas, they’ve just found a new way to read Genesis. And really, reading Genesis “literarily” is not new at all—Bible scholars like John Walton (a professor at Wheaton College in Illinois), who believes that Genesis can be mixed with evolution, have made similar arguments.

You see, theistic evolutionists have to explain away what Genesis says so that their belief in man’s fallible ideas will fit with Scripture. And Beidler does just that—he claims that if we truly understand the culture in which Genesis was written, we’ll see that it’s unreasonable to take Genesis in a straightforward manner.

Sadly, Beidler’s view of Scripture—of Genesis in particular—is low. And even though he attempts to find ways around taking God at His Word in Genesis, he believes he is “let[ing] the Bible speak for itself.” But what he’s really doing is forcing a “modern paradigm” onto the Word of God.

And he admits what he’s done—he says that Genesis is an “etiological account,” which is a sophisticated way of saying that Genesis is simply about origins and does not need to be taken literally. So, how does he handle the New Testament references to a literal Adam and Eve? Well, that’s for tomorrow.

By the way—is not God’s Word for all people for all time and will stand forever?

Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven. (Psalms 119:89)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Note: I thank Steve Golden for his work in composing this blog.

Is Genesis an “Etiological Account”?

Well, BioLogos is taking a new approach in its mission to teach Christians that evolution and millions of years can be mixed with the Bible. In a recent article series called “Confronting Our Fears,” guest author Mike Beidler attempts to show Christians that they should have no fears about losing biblical authority or the gospel, in an effort to help them feel better about accepting evolution and millions of years. Today and tomorrow, I want to show you some of Beidler’s arguments because, even though they aren’t new, Beidler is very honest about the implications of theistic evolution.

Beidler’s view places man’s word in authority over God’s Word—it adds to the decline of biblical authority that is so prevalent in today’s culture. But Beidler’s goal in this particular article, “Losing Biblical Authority,” is to lessen believers’ fears of losing biblical authority if they compromise on the Genesis account of creation.

Now, Beidler openly states that “the ‘literal sense’ of Genesis 1 . . . does in fact rule out cosmological and biological evolution” (I would add geological evolution to that). And he’s right—if we take God at His Word, then evolutionary ideas don’t fit. But Beidler has an argument for this:

But I would also ask the question of whether a “literary sense” of Genesis 1 allows for evolution. . . . I would also argue that a “literal” reading of Genesis 1, framed by our own modern paradigm, is unfaithful to the original intent of the author, and that we should take special care to read Genesis 1 “literarily” through the eyes of the ancient Hebrews, understanding what was (and wasn’t) important to them.

In other words, since taking Genesis at face value means the people at BioLogos would have to reject evolutionary ideas, they’ve just found a new way to read Genesis. And really, reading Genesis “literarily” is not new at all—Bible scholars like John Walton (a professor at Wheaton College in Illinois), who believes that Genesis can be mixed with evolution, have made similar arguments.

You see, theistic evolutionists have to explain away what Genesis says so that their belief in man’s fallible ideas will fit with Scripture. And Beidler does just that—he claims that if we truly understand the culture in which Genesis was written, we’ll see that it’s unreasonable to take Genesis in a straightforward manner.

Sadly, Beidler’s view of Scripture—of Genesis in particular—is low. And even though he attempts to find ways around taking God at His Word in Genesis, he believes he is “let[ing] the Bible speak for itself.” But what he’s really doing is forcing a “modern paradigm” onto the Word of God.

And he admits what he’s done—he says that Genesis is an “etiological account,” which is a sophisticated way of saying that Genesis is simply about origins and does not need to be taken literally. So, how does he handle the New Testament references to a literal Adam and Eve? Well, that’s for tomorrow.

By the way—is not God’s Word for all people for all time and will stand forever?

Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven. (Psalms 119:89)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Note: I thank Steve Golden for his work in composing this blog.

Have a Mega Vacation and Attend the Mega Conference!

Now is the time to start planning your family vacation for the summer.

Join us at the Answers Mega Conference this July in beautiful Sevierville, Tennessee, near the scenic Great Smoky Mountains and surrounded by great family attractions. This year’s conference is bigger and better than ever! We have added a special children’s program for all kids ages 4–12 that will take them through AiG’s newest Vacation Bible School (VBS), Kingdom Chronicles. There will be special sessions just for teens featuring dynamic youth speaker, Bill Jack, as well as options for a geology excursion, Stargazer nights, and much more.

I will be speaking at the conference. The featured speakers include Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council, Todd Friel of Wretched Radio, Eric Hovind with Creation Today, and many of your favorite AiG speakers.

To get complete details, visit the new, enhanced website—which is now mobile friendly—at www.AnswersMega.org. (Make sure you watch the short video about the conference.)

You can check out the complete schedule, speaker bios, discounts on lodging, and great discounts on many of the local area attractions for the whole family including Dollywood, Dixie Stampede, and WonderWorks.

This will be a vacation that your family will remember for a lifetime! Don’t forget the early registration discounts will save you 20 percent.

Plan to come! I hope to see you there.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Birthday Blessings

Here is a creative way that a friend of AiG came up with to commemorate his birthday—and to bless AiG at the same time.

As a regular supporter, I cannot tell you the meaning that the AiG ministry has had on my life. God has been SO good to me in every aspect of my life.

I just celebrated my 40th birthday. I know that despite my request for no gifts, people still bring them, but I asked if they must bring a gift, they should support Answers in Genesis. Enclosed are the contributions to AiG as a result of my 40th birthday bash—I hope they are a blessing to your ministry.

Here is the invitation that was sent out:

– R.M., Ohio

At this time of year when we are celebrating the birthday of Christ, perhaps you also will consider a donation to our Bible-affirming, evangelistic ministry. In particular, I think of the Ark Encounter project here in northern Kentucky. I mentioned a few days ago that of the $24.5 million that AiG is raising for its share to build a full-size Noah’s Ark, the $10 million mark has been crossed. The “thermometer” on the Ark Encounter website reflects the total Ark donations and boarding-pass purchases that have been given. More and more people are catching the vision for the evangelistic Ark Encounter and are giving to the project!

Some supporters of AiG want to bless the Ark project with $1.25 million in matching gift contributions before the end of the year! So, every donation for the Ark Encounter that we receive by December 31 will be matched dollar for dollar—up to $1.25 million!

You can participate in this matching gift opportunity on our AiG website.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Morality Didn’t Evolve

According to a prominent secularist, “We only live once. … So why not try to be nice to each other?” Michael De Dora is the director of the Center for Inquiry’s Office of Public Policy. This organization is “dedicated to fostering secular society,” and De Dora is, not surprisingly, an atheist.

Now, in a very brief interview—only three questions—De Dora tries to explain where people should turn for a moral framework outside of the Bible. He fails to do so adequately. But De Dora’s responses are perfect examples of how the culture just doesn’t understand the role God’s Word plays in things like morality.

According to the interviewer, the Center for Inquiry “aims to put an end to religion’s influence on public policy.” So how does De Dora defend his statement that we should be “nice” to each other? Well, he gives all the credit for morality to … evolution! He says, “There’s plenty of evidence, once you accept the theory of evolution, that morality is developed over a long period of time so we can live together without wanting to kill each other all the time.”

You know, this may seem like an obvious question, but if morals evolved slowly over time through chance processes, how do we know they evolved the right way?  Why should we trust “morals” that evolved by chance?  And how did the animal world make it past the first kinds? Shouldn’t they have been so devoid of morals that they killed each other off completely? The foundation of evolutionary ideas is death. There’s no way to reasonably expect morals to simply emerge among organisms by chance.

De Dora goes on:

We’re all born with a basic moral sense, and it’s our duty to refine that. … You have to look at thousands of years of writing to try to reason through and use our consciences and decide what’s right and wrong to find out how we should treat other people and animals.

Actually, we are all born with a basic moral sense:

for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them). (Romans 2:14–15)

Those writings that De Dora recommends looking to for morality include Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates—all fallible, fallen men. So instead of allowing God’s Word, where our moral framework comes from, to influence public policy, De Dora would rather rely on philosophical writings to influence public policy.

Now, earlier in the interview De Dora said it is “necessary” to show hostility toward those who try to make him live according to their “religious dogmas.” But he ends the interview by saying, “Each human being has the duty and the obligation to treat their fellow creatures as best and as nicely as possible.” Over the years, I’ve pointed out the inconsistency of the atheistic worldview—and this is another example! By saying that I have a “duty” to treat people and animals well, De Dora is pushing his own religious dogma on me. In the atheistic worldview, who has the authority to give such an “obligation” to humanity? No one! Without the Bible, everything comes down to man’s changing opinions.

The inconsistency doesn’t end there, however. De Dora says, “I think that everyone has to find their own meaning in life.” But, I assume, a meaning within the parameters of this “duty” to be nice to people. But what if I find that my meaning is totally opposite of being nice to people? Within the atheistic framework, what stops me from doing whatever I want, regardless of how it may affect others?

Really, what De Dora has done is defined his own moral framework, imposed it on everyone who reads this interview, and then said, “But don’t try to push your views on me!” But he wants to push his ideas on everyone else! You see, it’s not possible to have a consistent worldview without the absolute authority and truth of God’s Word as a foundation. Instead of being like De Dora and others who are trying to learn about morals from long dead philosophers, we need to go to the only absolute authority—the Word of God. Morality didn’t evolve—God gave it to us.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Note: I thank Steve Golden for his assistance in composing this blog item.

There Shall Be No More Death

In light of the terrible shooting tragedy yesterday at a Connecticut school, I thought it would be good simply to reprint a few passages of Scripture  to remind us that this fallen, evil world won’t go on forever.

 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”

And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts.” (Revelation 21:1–6)

Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:11–13)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Peter Enns—Mutilating God’s Word

Many of you will remember the name Peter Enns. He spoke at a homeschool convention where I was speaking. I showed a couple of video clips of him in my talks, showing he didn’t believe in a literal Adam or literal Eve or literal Fall (after we were told by conference organizers that I could critique Enns’s beliefs during the conference—we had informed them that we were considering it, and we were cleared to do so). Well, instead I was dropped from the next homeschool convention and Peter Enns was retained. In many ways it was a turning point in the national homeschool movement. Homeschoolers in droves showed their support for me and AiG for standing on the authority of the Word of God.

Earlier this year, an arm of Baker Book publishers put out a book by Peter Enns on The Evolution of Adam, where he proposed that biological evolution is fact and that there was no literal Adam or Eve or literal Fall.

Personally, I don’t see how someone can understand the gospel in any way if they don’t believe in a literal Fall. Now, Wikipedia (though not a reliable source of accurate information) describes Enns this way:

Peter Eric Enns is an Evangelical Christian biblical scholar, theologian, and writer. He has written widely on hermeneutics, the relationship between science and religion, Christianity and evolution, and Old Testament interpretation.

I can say categorically, Enns is not an “Evangelical”! And I really don’t know what Enns would mean by the word “Christian”! You will understand why I say this after you read today’s main article on our website (see excerpts and link below).

Peter Enns has attacked me and AiG for our stand on biblical authority ever since that homeschool convention. Recently, he launched another attack against me personally—and what we teach at AiG.

For today’s main web article, AiG speaker and researcher Dr. Terry Mortenson has quoted the mocking article Peter Enns wrote and then commented on it throughout. I felt this was an important article to warn the church about concerning academics like Peter Enns and his heretical teaching, and again to reinforce to you the vital importance of taking God at His Word—so much so that we made it the lead article on AiG’s website today. I urge you all to read this. Our web article begins with the following headline:

Mutilating God’s Word: Adam, Bilbo, and Peter Enns

In a recent blog post, Old-Testament scholar Dr. Peter Enns strongly accused Ken Ham of teaching obvious error and misleading Christians into believing in a literal Adam. But do Enns’s criticisms stand up to scrutiny? Let’s see. I will intersperse my comments throughout his December 7, 2012, blog post. In Enns’s text, all bold and italics are his emphases.

Bilbo–I Mean, Adam–Was a Historical Person (and Ken Ham has a poster to prove it)

Before I get going here, I want to be crystal clear about something. I am not remotely interested in trying to change Ken Ham’s mind about Genesis. Nor am I trying to raid his flock and steal his sheep.

Note that the first word in his title is “Bilbo.” Who is Bilbo? Well, he is the primary fictional character in The Hobbit and a supporting character in The Lord of the Rings. These are two of the most well-known of J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy stories. So right from the start, Enns has a mocking tone, indicating that in his mind the “Adam” in Genesis is no more historical that the “Bilbo” in Tolkien’s fictional books! Does this mean that Enns thinks the Bible is fiction?

But quite often he says things that are transparently wrong and highly misleading. My concern is for those who are being mislead [sic] and have perhaps begun to sense it, and might be looking for voices to confirm their suspicions and finding a way forward.

As I proceed with my comments below, the reader can decide who really is “transparently wrong and highly misleading.”

Dr. Mortenson ends his extensive article this way:

We urge Dr. Enns and other similar theologians to humbly repent of their arrogant mishandling of the Word of Almighty God and to do their homework in reading the scientific criticisms of the naturalistic (i.e., atheistic) story of evolution and millions of years that have been written by qualified PhD creationists. A good series of DVD lectures by Andrew Snelling presents with abundant visual aids some of the geological evidence in his two-volume work Earth’s Catastrophic Past. At a more introductory level, John Morris’s The Young Earth will be enlightening to those not trained in geology. The old-earth theologians also need to deal with the careful biblical scholarship defending young-earth creation, such as found in Coming to Grips with Genesis.

At the top of Dr. Enns’s blog page he says that he is “rethinking biblical Christianity.” He is doing no such thing. Because he has totally capitulated to the secular beliefs of molecules–to-man evolution and millions of years, he is mutilating the inerrant Word of God by forcing these pagan beliefs on the text. He is thereby destroying biblical Christianity. Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Christians must reject his views. It is his writings that are the useless, but clever, propaganda deceiving Christians.

I urge you to read Dr. Mortenson’s entire article so you can be warned about what is happening within the church—and be equipped to defend the Christian faith against those who so mutilate God’s Word today.

It should be noted—as a warning to parents who don’t want their kids being taught by someone with heretical teaching that undermines the authority of the Word of God—that Peter Enns is currently on the affiliate faculty (in Biblical Studies) at Eastern University in the greater Philadelphia area. On the Eastern University website, we read that this university is described as follows:

A Christian university dedicated to the preparation of undergraduate and graduate students for thoughtful and productive lives of Christian faith and service. Recognized for its academic excellence, Eastern has been ranked in the Top Tier of North Regional Universities in the current edition of America’s Best Colleges in U.S. News & World Report.

So one of the instructors at this university does not believe in a literal Adam and Eve or a literal Fall into sin, and yet the university is described as “Christian”? What, then, does the word “Christian” mean?

I encourage parents to check out our Creation Colleges website.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Atheists Continue Their Assault on Christianity

In recent years, atheists have been actively involved in billboard campaigns across America, not just to promote their atheism, but to mock God and scoff at Christians.

I’ve also increasingly noticed on Facebook, blogs, and other places on the internet that the atheists typically won’t oppose Christians with the “facts”—they resort to name-calling, blaspheming, or produce fraudulent items in their attempts to discredit, malign, and defame Christians.

This is the billboard located in Times Square in New York.

The latest billboard campaign in Times Square in New York is another of their attacks.

In an article on Fox News we read the following:

Just as midtown Manhattan comes alive with Christmas cheer, festive window displays and Salvation Army bell ringers trying to channel holiday generosity to the needy, an atheist group has a message for the masses teeming into Times Square: Jesus is a myth.

With a picture of Santa Claus above another image of Jesus Christ, the sign, sponsored by New Jersey-based American Atheists, urges passersby to “Keep the Merry!” and “Dump the Myth!” Attacks on Christianity from the group have become routine, and in the bustling heart of America’s busiest city, most folks don’t even waste a shrug on the sign.

The article then quotes David Silverman, president of American Atheists (he debated Dr. Terry Mortenson of AiG on CNN last June):

“Most Christians are really atheists who feel trapped in their family’s religion,” Silverman told FoxNews.com. “They need not be Christian to enjoy the holiday season.”

The Fox News article continues as follows:

The ad is the latest in holiday-themed billboards put up by the group every year. In 2011, American Atheists posted a variety of ads as part of a “Myth” campaign in three states with images of Santa, Jesus, Greek god Poseidon, and the Devil with the phrase, “37 million Americans know MYTHS when they see one.”

The Catholic League has battled it out with Silverman’s group in the past, even posting opposing signs on each end of the Lincoln Tunnel in 2010. But Catholic League spokesman Bill Donohue said Silverman went too far this year.

“This year it’s different,” he said. “This is vile. When you depict Jesus on the cross with a crown of thorns, this is exploitative. We as Christians never harass, intimidate or insult atheists. But they can’t seem to say, ‘We simply disagree with you.’ They have to insult us.”

Read can read the Fox News article at this link.

Yesterday on my Facebook page, I posted an item about a number of secularist websites that had posted a fraudulent item to defame me and discredit AiG. Our attorneys had to write demand letters to get the items taken down. Here is what was written on my Facebook page:

A number of websites and bloggers are circulating a fabricated page that they claim comes from one of my older books, “The Dinosaurs of Eden.” The original wording has been removed using Photoshop (or similar means) and new text has been inserted that contains inflammatory language. We do not know yet where the false text and Photoshopping originated, but we have strong suspicions.

Our attorney has been sending “take-down” letters to the sites that have posted this manufactured page. We are advised by our attorney that the manufactured page infringes on AiG’s copyright by using AiG’s original illustrations without permission. More important, the fabricated wording included in that page harms AiG by misrepresenting the ministry in a defamatory manner. The fabricated wording attributes statements and beliefs to AiG that the ministry has not made and does not hold. Clearly, the manufactured page is not parody or an attempt at commentary under what’s called “fair use”; instead, it is an attempt to cast the ministry in a false light.

In this electronic age, such attacks on Bible-upholding groups are on the rise, especially from secularists who have no absolute standard of right and wrong in their meaningless and purposeless world, and who have no qualms about using the web and other means to pass around false and defamatory information.

The atheists are certainly on the attack–looking on Christians as the enemy. We can only expect attacks like this to continue.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken