Ken Ham's Blog, page 402

Our Museum Dino Is Famous

One of our Creation Museum dinosaurs was again spotted outside our Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati area. You may recall my blog item in July (Young Girl Discovers Smithsonian Is Using a Creation Museum Dinosaur) when I shared about one of our wonderfully sculpted raptor models being found on some promotional advertising for the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Well, our dinosaur recently appeared on a billboard in the Milwaukee area, to promote a local zoo (the Milwaukee County Zoo). Here is how we found out about the unapproved use of our dinosaur image, as reported by a staff member who was driving through Milwaukee late last month:

To: Mark Looy

Subject: Milwaukee Zoo using Creation Museum Dinosaur

Mr. Looy,

Yesterday my family and I were on our way home after a trip up to Wisconsin. While on our way back, my mom said, “Oh look! Is that a Creation Museum billboard?” I glanced up and there was billboard for the Milwaukee Zoo, except they were using a photo of our dinosaur — the very same one that the Smithsonian used in their advertisements. I decided to report it, because of what happened with the Smithsonian. I’m attaching a photo of the billboard that I found from Google, as I did not have time to snap a picture of it myself.

Just a few miles down the road was one of our museum “Mighty Mastodon” billboards. How ironic.

Have a wonderful day.

–M. M.

Both the Smithsonian and the Milwaukee County Zoo had apparently taken a photo of our dinosaur from a “stock photo” source—so that the image could be used to help draw visitors to their attractions. We’re relatively sure that both institutions were unaware of who owned the rights to this image (in fact, it was probably an ad agency that each of them hired to create the advertisements that used the unauthorized image). But we notified both the Smithsonian and the Milwaukee zoo that we believe the image was taken by a visitor to our museum and then given (sold?) to a photo bank.

Even though the image is being used in an unauthorized manner, we have been willing to allow the use of the image, provided that the proper credit be given to the Creation Museum (the Smithsonian decided, however, to remove the image from its brochures). Now, the zoo’s dinosaur-billboard campaign ended earlier this month, so we did not make a big issue out of the use of our dinosaur on its board.

It is somewhat ironic that as so many humanists attack and mock our Creation Museum, and even say that our museum is a “pseudo” one, that our high-quality museum dinosaur model is being used in promoting major attractions—including the Smithsonian and its heavy evolutionary content!  Yes, AiG sculptor Doug Henderson’s well-done sculpture is being used by secularists!

Here is a previous AiG article about this billboard irony:

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/07/14/news-to-note-07142012

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Assemblies of God Journal Takes a Dogmatic Position Against Those Who Insist on a Literal Genesis

Now of course I could understand the editor of the Assemblies of God Enrichment Journal and the hierarchy of the Assemblies of God denomination vehemently disagreeing with the heading of this blog post. But let me explain why I stand by it.

At AiG, we take a dogmatic stand on marriage being that of one man and one woman (male and female), because that is obviously what the Bible teaches. Any other definition of marriage is unbiblical (and there are many Scriptures we have cited in articles to justify this; e.g., Matthew 19:4–7; Romans 1, and so on).

Now, there are people in the church that call us intolerant because of our stand on biblical marriage. They claim we are dogmatic and that we should be more tolerant and allow all views. But in making this statement they are being intolerant of our view, which, in essence, states that there is only one correct biblical view. And those that claim we are intolerant are very dogmatic about their intolerance of our view, which says that their view of allowing different positions is incorrect! [Please note: The example of marriage has nothing to do with the Assemblies of God denomination. This is just an example used to explain tolerance and intolerance.]

In other words, when it comes to claims on truth, there really is no such thing as a “neutral” position!

In this new issue of a journal from the Assemblies of God denomination, the editors have tried to be “neutral” in presenting different views of Genesis. I’m sure they see this as a balanced approach and believe they are showing tolerance in allowing different views.

However, we at Answers in Genesis believe there is only one correct view regarding how one takes Genesis—it must be taken as literal history (it is written as a historical narrative). And we must as God’s people stand against the compromise of reinterpreting Genesis to fit in evolution and millions of years, which undermines biblical authority. We are often called intolerant for our stand. There are church leaders who claim they are tolerant in allowing different views regarding Genesis, but in doing so they are intolerant of the view AiG takes, which we adamantly insist is the correct biblical view.

So, in reality, in the journal of this denomination, by allowing different authors to present different views, by not coming out and clearly stating which is the correct view, and by not giving reasons why compromise views are in error, I submit that the journal is taking a dogmatic, intolerant stand against those who take the position we do at AiG.

And as we have said over and over again, it is the compromise of evolution and millions of years with Genesis. This is the Genesis 3 attack (“Did God Really Say?”) that is undermining biblical authority in our day, and it is a great contributing factor as to why coming generations are leaving the church.

I submit that this journal would probably never take the same approach with the Resurrection or Virgin Birth. They wouldn’t (I would hope) allow people with many different views about whether it was a real physical resurrection or real virgin birth give their opinions and let people make up their own minds! I’m sure they would want to point out error and stand on the authority of God’s Word.

So I stand by my title to this blog post.

There is no doubt the church in our Western world is in a sad state. Many Christian leaders today just do not seem to understand the foundational importance of Genesis to the rest of Scripture and to the gospel. I recently learned that this fall 2012 issue of the Assemblies of God Enrichment Journal is themed around the “conflict” between what they see as religion and science—but what we would see as really a conflict between God’s Word (the historical science of the Bible—the history in Genesis) and man’s word (the historical science—belief—of the secularists concerning origins).

Of course, they try to act “neutrally” and present differing views, but what they end up communicating is that “neutrality” is better than standing on what God’s Word clearly says in Genesis (and is confirmed throughout the Bible).

In one of the opening articles, Amos Yong, a professor of theology at Regent University in Virginia, writes about pastors who teach that there is only one acceptable view of the creation account in Genesis:

But [college- and university-educated members] do know there are a variety of views about scientific theories. A pastor’s insistence that there is only one way to see things says to these members: “Leave your mind at the door before you come into church.” This may not be the intended message, but it is implicit in the way pastors sometimes talk about the 7 days of creation when our audience has come to understand the ancient Hebrews did not interpret these as literally as we do. (Faith and Science: Friend or Foe?)

Thus, Yong confirms what I said earlier: he is intolerant of those who say there is only one view and dogmatically speaks against this position!

Aside from a series of articles arguing for various views on the age of the earth by Hugh Ross, Kurt Wise, and Davis Young, the issue is devoted to topics such as how to create a “safe haven” for youth to question beliefs. The author of that article writes that youth leaders should avoid advocating any views in particular—again an illustration that they are really intolerant of those who teach as we do at AiG that we must take Genesis as written and not compromise it in any way with man’s historical science (beliefs about the past):

One way to get out of the line of fire is to avoid championing one view over another. Let the proponents of aposition share its strengths, and then have the detractors present the weaknesses of that position. (Preparing Young People for a Life of Faith)

The above statement (and a number of others like it in this journal) tells me that these authors do not value what Genesis has to say about the age of the earth more than they value the regularly changing opinions of men. If they’re unwilling to teach what the Bible says about our origins and the age of the earth—and if they’re willing to tell other leaders, the people who are in a position to teach and disciple believers, to remain supposedly “neutral” (which in reality is an intolerant and dogmatic position) and not teach a young earth (as the Bible clearly teaches)—then they are communicating to believers that what God’s Word actually says is not important—and that God’s Word can be reinterpreted to fit in man’s fallible beliefs. Ironically, these authors think that remaining “neutral” means they aren’t taking a stand, but in remaining neutral they are actually taking a stand against a straightforward reading of God’s Word!

We have written many articles about the consequences of fitting the belief of millions of years into the Bible. Not only does this set the example that man’s fallible beliefs can be in authority over the infallible Word of God, but it also contradicts the Bible’s obvious teaching that death, disease, suffering, thorns, carnivory, etc. came after sin. For instance, read this article on the AiG website by Dr. Terry Mortenson, AiG–U.S., on the problems with death and suffering before the Fall.

Yong also makes the same assertion that many others have about Genesis, namely, that belief in a literal Genesis is a “second-tier issue”:

Let us instead distinguish what is nonnegotiable, like the existence of God as Creator, from issues of second-tier import, and then allow our believing scientists and our faithful theologians to keep doing their work at this level. (Faith and Science: Friend or Foe?)

But what should be being taught to people through these articles is that fallible man cannot take ideas outside of Scripture and reinterpret the clear words of Scripture to fit them in—this is the compromise that runs rampant in the church today.

Isaiah 2:22 tells us to stop trusting in man, and Psalm 118:8 states, “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.”

God warns us in Proverbs 30:5–6, “Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

In my talks on the relevance of Genesis, I often use an illustration showing how the church mistakenly ignores these attacks on theWord of God, saying, “It’s only a side issue. They aren’t attacking the Cross.” But what many of these churches fail to realize is that these attacks on Genesis are attacking the very foundation of the message of the Gospel—because they are attacks on the very Word of God itself. And it is from the Word of God that we get the gospel!

Ultimately there is no conflict between Scripture and observational (or operational) science. The conflict regarding origins is really one between the historical science of the Bible (the account of history in Genesis) and the historical science of the secularists (their account of supposed evolutionary millions of years history). Since the true history of our universe is recorded in the Bible, scientific research should confirm the authenticity and accuracy of the biblical text—and it does. When one introduces ideas that stem from an ungodly worldview (the anti-God religion of evolution or millions of years) into their thinking they are bound to reach faulty conclusions at odds with God’s Word.  So to make this fit with God’s Word, sadly, they have to change (reinterpret) the Word of God. This means that God’s Word is fallible and can’t really be trusted—and the infinite Creator God could not even get the first part of the Bible right. So how can we trust the rest? Thus generations taught such compromise are put on a slippery slide of unbelief through the whole of Scripture resulting in them walking away from the church. This is what is happening before our very eyes in our culture today.

I encourage you to read Dr. Liz Mitchell’s analysis of one the Enrichment Journal articles in today’s News to Note (an article series featured each Saturday on the AiG website).

As believers, we have to take God at His word. There’s a reason God asks Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding” (Job 38:4).

As the Scripture states, “let God be true but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Did Jesus Have a Wife?

If you’ve been following the news, you’ve probably heard with great fanfare the discovery of a fragment of a papyrus text that allegedly offers evidence that Jesus was married. Now, there is nothing in Scripture to support the idea that Jesus had a wife, but this notion has been promoted off and on over the years. It became extremely popular when Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code was published. Brown used absurd arguments in trying to make the case that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. For more information on this bizarre contention, see Tim Chaffey, What about the Factual Claims in The Da Vinci Code? in Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge, gen. eds., How Do We Know the Bible Is True? Volume 1 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2011).

What’s all the recent excitement over? Well, the fragment itself is just a few unfinished sentences, and the one people are talking about states, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife . . .’” That’s it! That’s all of their evidence—but some skeptics believe this may shake the foundations of Christianity. Our culture is certainly working hard to discredit the Word of God.

Of course, some of the major media outlets are hailing this so-called discovery as having “major implications for the Christian faith,” as one ABC News article put it. Others have written that Scripture does not speak to whether or not Jesus was married, so this could confirm that he had a wife.

But believers know this fragment doesn’t offer any confirmation that Jesus was married. The fragment is dated as being from the fourth century A.D., much too late to have been written by anyone who knew Jesus. “But,” some have said, “Scripture is silent on whether or not Jesus was married. So this could mean he was!” Yes, the Bible does not definitively say, “Jesus was/was not married.” But a very strong case for Christ being unmarried can be made from Scripture. Tim Chaffey, AiG–U.S., has written a detailed article about the fragment, and he explains why Christians should reject the fragment itself and any arguments that Jesus had a wife during His earthly ministry. I urge you to read this piece that is the feature article today on the AiG website, so that you will be prepared to respond to these claims yourself—see Feedback: Was Jesus Married?

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Peter Enns Wants Children to Reject Genesis

I’ve blogged about Peter Enns many times because of his very public compromise on Genesis. (And many of you may recall the debacle between me and Peter Enns at a particular homeschool conference last year.)

Dr. Enns, who used to work with the theologically liberal group BioLogos, has written books and articles denying the historicity of Genesis, and he encourages fellow Christians to do the same. And now he’s resorted to a tactic similar to that of secularists—Enns says that any Christian who takes Genesis as history is reading the Bible in a “childish” way.

Dr. Enns’s recent blog post is titled Reading Genesis: Let’s be Adult about this, Shall We? He centers his argument on a statement made by Hermann Gunkel, a late nineteenth century to early twentieth century German Bible scholar. Gunkel claims that “A child, indeed, unable to distinguish between reality and poetry, loses something when it is told that its dearest stories are ‘not true.’ But the modern theologian should be further developed.” Gunkel goes on to say that Genesis is made up of “legends” and the church should not promote Genesis as historical.

And Dr. Enns has bought this argument hook, line, and sinker! There are many problems with this, but the most glaring one is Dr. Enns’s exaltation of a man’s idea about the Bible over the Word of God itself. What makes Hermann Gunkel more trustworthy than Genesis? What gives him more insight than the authors of Scripture, who were directly inspired by God to write what they did?

The second issue with Dr. Enns’s argument is his assertion that Genesis contains legends and myths. What a low view of Scripture! (See my article A Low View of Scripture.) Enns writes that his view of Scripture again stems from Hermann Gunkel’s beliefs:

Gunkel called these stories “legends” and, along with pretty much every Old Testament scholar since, said, “Yeah, these stories and the Bible are similar enough to say they are connected somehow. We need to think about how this information helps us understand what Genesis means and what we can expect from it.”

Of course, Dr. Enns has completely missed the point. There are many flood legends and creation legends around the world, but Genesis is not a compilation of those legends adjusted for the Hebrew mind. We know that Moses authored Genesis, likely working with written documents that had been passed down for generations and recounted the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and so on. (This is known as the Tablet Model of Genesis; for more information, see the article by Dr. Terry Mortenson and Bodie Hodge, Did Moses Write Genesis?)

Is it reasonable, then, to say that Moses simply grabbed a bunch of Egyptian or Babylonian myths and decided to write a false (called “mythical” by Enns and Gunkel) account of our origins? Absolutely not! If that were the case, Christians would not be able to trust any of God’s Word because God would be a liar. But this idea that Genesis is just a collection of legends is exactly what Dr. Enns—a professing Christian—is advocating in his blog post.

The events in Genesis 1–11 would have been remembered and passed down for generations. But, as man multiplied after the global Flood, later generations that embraced false gods would have every reason to corrupt those accounts and attribute them to their own idols. Hermann Gunkel and Dr. Enns get it backwards: Genesis is not a collection of legends—those legends, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Enuma Elish, are corrupted versions of the accounts in Genesis!

The final problem with Dr. Enns’s argument is that he resorts to a form of mudslinging to make his point. When an atheist doesn’t like that I teach a literal, six-day creation, he often says I’m engaging in “child abuse.” When Peter Enns doesn’t like the fact that church leaders hold to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, even in Genesis 1–11, he calls the church “childish.” Enns discusses students having a crisis of faith at church and Christian colleges or seminaries once they find out their “childish” reading of Genesis is incorrect.  And of course, Enns wants such places to help young people have what he calls an “adult” reading of Genesis—which means to reject it as history!

Actually it is people like Dr. Enns and his compromising views who really cause a crisis of faith in many young people! How we need to stand on the authority of God’s Word and equip the current and coming generations to be able to defend the Christian faith against the attacks of the secularists—and the attacks of Bible compromisers like Enns.

Dr. Enns writes that when people are told they should trust the authority of Scripture on origins, “you are asking of people to make a choice between remaining a childish reader of Genesis in order to stay Christian, or to become an adult reader and an unbeliever.” And, of course, Dr. Enns believes that meshing evolutionary ideas with Scripture is the proper alternative and still allows you to be “faithful to the Bible.”

As I was reading Peter Enns’s blog post, I kept thinking of Matthew 18, which says, “Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven’” (Matthew 18:2–4).

Dr. Enns will be humbled as a child one day when he, like everyone, will bow and kneel before the King of creation. Oh that he would come as a child right now and trust the Word of the King as every child of God should!

Please pray for Peter Enns.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

I thank Steve Golden for his assistance in preparing this blog item.

Why Not Edit the Bible?

For many years Karl Giberson was a professor at Eastern Nazarene College. He was also the vice-president of BioLogos (a theologically liberal think tank for those who compromise God’s Word in Genesis) for about two years.

He now writes, speaks, and teaches a religion and science course at a Catholic college.

Giberson recently wrote a book where he basically rewrites Genesis to fit in with evolution or millions of years. In his article about the book, his subheading is, “What the Genesis creation account might look like if it were written today, rather than thousands of years ago.”

In this article, he begins,

I have often wondered—quietly and usually to myself—what would happen if we could edit the Bible. After all, textbooks get edited and publishers bring out new and improved versions that are more in tune with how things are, instead of how things were. Wouldn’t it be good if some ecumenical committee could go through the Old Testament and take out all the language about stoning people to death for breaking various rules? Or maybe soften that passage where the Psalmist talks about bashing the heads of the babies of his enemies against the rocks? We could also fix some of those New Testament misquotes of the Old Testament.

The fact he would even think this way is astonishing for a theologian! What a low view of Scripture he has. (See my article A Low View of Scripture.)

Of course the Creation Museum gets a mention:

Many biblical ideas don’t fit with our contemporary scientific understanding. Unfortunately, as we have seen all too often through the previous century and into the present, many Christians insist that we have to accept all the details of the biblical story of creation. The Creation Museum in Kentucky contains, among its many exhibits, beautiful dioramas of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, with dinosaurs looking over their shoulders—an impossible scene, but one implied by the Genesis story.

But note that he states, “but one implied by the Genesis story.” In other words, he knows that if you take Genesis as literal history, then the Creation Museum is portraying that history as given in Genesis! Of course, he doesn’t believe Genesis is history, but he is acknowledging that the Creation Museum is teaching correctly from Genesis if the book is taken as history—which it is, of course.

He states the following in his article:

In Seven Glorious Days I have turned on the light to show the reader just how beautiful the creation story is, when we trade the ancient science for its modern counterpart …

As an imaginative exercise—not a rewrite of the Bible!—I offer my speculation in Seven Glorious Days as to what the Genesis creation account might look like if it were written today, rather than thousands of years ago.

Despite his supposed disclaimer (“As an imaginative exercise—not a rewrite of the Bible”), he is in fact rewriting and editing the Bible!

I certainly do not recommend that anyone obtain a copy of his heretical book because Giberson is actually doing what he said in his first paragraph—he is editing and rewriting God’s Word! Wow! He has to answer to God for that one day, and there will be a day of reckoning!

Can you imagine standing before the holy, infinite God the Creator one day and saying, “God, I hope you like my rewrite of Genesis. I wanted to correct the way you had it written to fit with what we humans believe about evolution and millions of years. Your version was outdated and didn’t work for academics like me in the twenty-first century.”  I would not want to be in his shoes!

You can read his article at this link.

I encourage you to read the book Old-Earth Creationism on Trial, which is available for purchase or online to read.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Origins and “Child Abuse”

An AiG supporter recently brought to my attention a blog where creationist tours of the Denver Zoo and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science are referred to by the blogger as “child abuse.” (I’ve blogged about this issue before.)

Now, this particular blog is not well known, but it highlights an important trend among those who oppose biblical creation. We already see evolutionists refusing to debate creationists and claiming there is supposedly such a lack of evidence for biblical creation that it isn’t worth their time. However, more and more secularists are going a step further and painting creationists as “child abusers,” not only attempting to discredit the Bible, but also trying to prevent the teaching of biblical creation altogether. I’ve seen this not just on blogs but even from readers who comment on these posts, responding with accusations of creationism being “pure child abuse.”

We’ve noticed in recent times an increase in secularist rhetoric regarding the issue of children being taught the Bible is true in Genesis. Off and on over the last few years ago, secularists have used the term “child abuse” to describe Christians who teach their children to believe the Christian faith, but in recent times, we’ve seen an enormous increase in the secularist accusation of “child abuse” leveled at Christians, particularly those who teach children to believe in a literal Genesis.

In one example, an atheist blogger wrote last year, “The king of the Answers in Genesis hucksters, Ken Ham, is panhandling for the fundamentalist institute in Modesto where they are holding a Creationist Conference. Ken’s a big promoter of pseudo-science methodology to try to ‘prove’ that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Sending children to be misinformed by this fundamentalist is borderline child abuse” (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/261504).

Richard Dawkins makes an argument that Christianity—specifically belief in the truth of Scripture—is child abuse in his book The God Delusion. And in an article published just this year, Dawkins made the statement that creationism should not be taught to children, and commented on the state of schools in England with the following:

It is clear that some faith schools are ignoring the regulations and are continuing to teach myth as though it were science,” Dawkins said. “Evolution is fact, supported by evidence from a host of scientific disciplines, and we do a great disservice to our young people if we fail to teach it properly. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/15/free-schools-creationism-intelligent-design?newsfeed=true)

Two other blogs I came across both dealt with creationism in terms of “child abuse.” In 2011, a well-trafficked atheist blog reviewed and gave away copies of a book on how religion is child abuse. In order to receive a copy, people had to post my name, “Ken Ham,” in the comments—the clear implication being that creationism is a form of abuse (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/06/18/shedding-light-on-religious-child-maltreatment/).

P.Z. Myers, a professor at the University of Minnesota, said that thinking such as creationism “works as a kind of brute-force psychological hammer when abusing the mind of an 8-year-old” (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/16/a-little-comparative-religion-would-do-ken-ham-a-world-of-good/).

And even Bill Nye, though he did not use the phrase “child abuse,” made the point that parents who teach their children creationism teach them to live in “inconsistent” worlds and destroy their hopes for a “scientifically literate” future (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU). This is all clear evidence of a culture that willingly suppresses the truth of God’s Word.

Consider the following points:

From my experience, I would say that probably most (if not all) of these secularists who accuse Christians, particularly creationists, of “child abuse” would support abortion. According to the National Right to Life, which pulled statistics from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, there have been 54,559,615 abortions in the United States alone since Roe v. Wade in 1973. These secularists support the killing of these children by abortion (which is a shocking child abuse), but they accuse Christians of child abuse who raise children to trust God’s Word.
Secularists (like Bill Nye) want to teach generations of children that they are just animals in an evolutionary process—thus there is no purpose and meaning in life except what one wants to make it to be.
Secularists use terms like “child abuse” more and more in the hope that eventually, as the old adage says something like, “If you throw enough mud, some will stick.” The more they use the term “child abuse,” the more they hope Christians will be considered dangerous. It’s all part of the anti-Christian agenda we see permeating the culture in our age.
Secularists want to indoctrinate your children, and they are becoming increasingly intolerant of Christians and the Christian faith. The secularists want your children!

The newly updated and revised edition of my book The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years (available in October) deals with this issue of those who, like these secularists, want children to be taught atheistic evolution and  “suppress” the truth of God’s Word. Below is an excerpt that I think is very appropriate in this case:

People often make the statement, “If there is so much evidence that God created the world and sent a global cataclysmic flood, then surely all scientists would believe this.” The solution is given here in 2 Peter 3. It is not simply a matter of providing evidence to convince people, for people do not want to be convinced. We read in Romans 1:20 that there is enough evidence to convince everyone that God is Creator, so much so that we are condemned if we do not believe. Furthermore, Romans 1:18 tells us that men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”

It is not a matter of lack of evidence to convince people that the Bible is true; the problem is that they do not want to believe the Bible. The reason for this is obvious. If people believed in the God of the Bible, they would have to acknowledge His authority and obey the rules He has laid down. However, every human being suffers from the same problem — the sin that Adam committed in the Garden of Eden, a disease that we all inherit. Adam’s sin was rebellion against God’s authority. Likewise, people everywhere today are in rebellion against God, so to admit that the Bible is true would be an admission of their own sinful and rebellious nature and of their need to be born again by cleansing through the blood of Christ.

It is easy to see this willing ignorance in action when watching debates over the origins issue. In most cases, the evolutionists are not interested in the wealth of data, evidence, and information the creationists put forward. They usually try to attack creationists by attempting to destroy their credibility. They are not interested in data, logical reasoning, or any evidence that points to creation or refutes evolution because they are totally committed to their religious faith called evolution. . . . Modern geology tells us that there never was a global Flood as described in the Bible. We are told that millions of years of geological processes can explain the enormous fossil record in the sedimentary rock layers over the earth’s surface. However, creationists have shown that the fossil-bearing rock layers were produced by enormous catastrophic processes consistent with Noah’s Flood.3 But evolutionists refuse to accept this, for to do so would mean that the Bible is right, and thus the whole of their evolutionary philosophy would have to be rejected. These people are willingly ignorant about the facts that do not support their evolutionary ideas but do fit into a model of geology based upon what the Bible says concerning Noah’s Flood.

Don’t let the secularists get your children—they are aggressively going after them! Consider the following verses:

“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.”  (Deuteronomy 6:6–7)

Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord. (Psalms 127:3)

Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Why Won’t the Evolutionists Debate?

Last week, I posted a challenge to Bill Nye on my blog to debate AiG staff member Dr. Georgia Purdom. Bill Nye responded to Dr. Purdom’s comments regarding his recent video titled “Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children.” Of course, over the years I’ve found that many evolutionists refuse to debate creationists. In the Duane Gish era, they used to debate, but I think because they couldn’t win, they then resorted to refusing to debate and instead they just personally attack creationists and make all sorts of false claims about creation and evolution.

A few years back, one of the editions of the Reports of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE is an anti-creation organization headed up by atheist Dr. Eugenie Scott) was dedicated to convincing evolutionists why they should not debate creationists. One of the authors disparaged creationism and accused creation scientists of telling lies during debates:

This is another reason not to debate creationists: in the scientific community, theories do not rise or fall based on debate and rhetoric, but on the strength of evidence. …

Since there is no evidence to support a young earth, a sudden creation, or a global flood, one must be prepared for the main rhetorical devices of the creationist: out-of-context quotations and straw-man arguments. Creationists … have raised this tactic to an art form. This works because the audience cannot believe that a “Christian” is going to lie, and nothing the opponent says will convince them otherwise. It is a tremendous waste of time for the scientist to wade through half-truths and urban legends before even touching upon the science. (Debates, National Center for Science Education)

So what do they mean by “lie”? They mean they can’t answer the arguments, so they call them a lie—and then refuse to debate! This secularist author’s reasoning is really just the typical sort of attack they launch on creation and creationists! Just call names and make accusations—no substance at all!

We also need to understand that we’re all looking at the same “evidence”—our worldview is what affects our interpretation of this evidence in relation to the past. Claiming there is “no evidence” for biblical creation and that creationists operate on “half-truths and urban legends” is not sound, respectful reasoning. It’s merely an unfounded excuse to escape having to debate a scientist with a view that happens to contradict their evolutionary view, which they hold as fact! In reality, evolution and millions of years are their way of explaining life without God—their religion.

Professor Nick Gotelli at the University of Vermont wrote a letter a couple of years ago where he explained his refusal to debate an intelligent design advocate. While we at AiG do not promote the intelligent design movement because they typically argue only for a creator, not for the Creator God of the Bible (for more, see Commentary on the Intelligent Design Movement), Professor Gotelli’s response also offers nothing more than unfounded attacks on creationists:

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/18/how-to-respond-to-requests-to/)

In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins, who is known for often refusing to debate Christians, dismissed creationists, saying, “There aren’t two theories. There’s only one theory around; there’s only one game in town as far as serious science is concerned. Of course, you’ll get negative reactions from creationists. But who cares about creationists? They don’t know anything” (Dawkins: Creationists Know Nothing, CNN). By the way, Dawkins will sometimes debate a Christian who he knows believes in evolution. He actually calls people who compromise like this “deluded” (he stated this in an interview on video we have on file).

In another article, Dawkins explained his reasons for refusing to debate Bible-believing Christians who are creationists:

Well, in their shoes, perhaps I would be clamouring for debates as well. If your case depends on pulpit-style oratory, manipulating the emotions of your audience and playing with words, debates will probably work for you very well. They do not, however, work well for explaining science. (Why I Won’t Take Part in Debate with Fundamentalists, Richard Dawkins Foundation)

So what are the common “reasons” these evolutionists claim they refuse to engage creationists in debate? Well, they include the following: alleged lack of evidence for creation; comparisons of creationism to ideas easily disproved by observational science, such as a flat earth; evolution is true, so there is no debate; and so on. They all turn out to be poorly-reasoned attacks. And I would submit that these attacks are just a deflection to avoid losing more debates against creationists.

If they are so confident evolution is true, and so confident creationists have no facts on their side, and so confident the Bible’s account of creation is wrong, and so confident that evolution is foundation of all science (as they falsely claim), then why on earth would they be worried about debating a biblical creationist? Shouldn’t the evolutionists be able to show them up to the world once and for all?

So what nasty things are evolutionists saying about our challenge to Bill Nye? Here are a couple of recent quotes from some well-known blogs:

These debates don’t settle the truth of evolution — the evidence does. Obviously, the Creation Museum has none of that, so they feed off of publicity. . . . There’s no need for a debate, because there’s no credible challenge to evolution. Rest assured that all the “controversies” in the scientific world have nothing to do with Creationism. (Ken Ham Challenges Bill Nye to a Debate, Friendly Atheist, blog)

Writing letters and making speeches are fine things to do, but we have misgivings about live debates with creationists. It’s bad strategy, because the mere appearance of a respected scientist on the same platform gives creationism credibility and creates the illusion that there’s some kind of scientific controversy that’s worth debating — and that creationists are qualified to debate with knowledgeable scientists. It also generates press attention. Creationists are not deserving of this. (Would You Debate Ken Ham? Sensuous Curmudgeon, blog)

Well, these are the same old arguments. Rather than debate us, they claim there is no evidence, that the debate is settled, and even question the credentials of our staff members (even though our researchers and  most of our speakers have doctorates in their fields!). The claim that biblical creation has no basis in reality is similar to some atheists who resort to calling creationism “child abuse” and “pseudoscience.” If there is no evidence for biblical creation and the debate really is settled on evolution, why not debate creationists? The evolutionists should be able to win easily, right?

It’s really the same reason the secular media will promote someone like Bill Nye and his video but not promote the video of AiG scientists.

It’s the same reason the secular media will often allow a compromising Christian to air his views publicly, but they rarely give any publicity to a bible-believing Creation scientist from a place like AiG.

It’s really the same reason the Creation Museum Christmas program hardly gets a mention in our local secular media, and yet it is one of the most-attended Christmas programs in the area, attracting over 26,000 people last year.

It’s really the anti-Christian bias that is growing in our culture.

Thanks for a Mother

One of AiG’s founders, Mark Looy sent this email to us today about the passing of his mother in California. Please pray for Mark and his family.

A wonderful, selfless woman, devoted wife of 60 years, and my beloved mother—who loved God—passed away peacefully at 12:15 a.m. in Vacaville, California. Please pray for my father, Adrian, age 90.

Even a few weeks ago in dealing with a different health issue, my mother indicated to us that she was ready to leave this earth and was prepared to meet God. She was at peace with Him and with everyone she knew.

My mother had a very full life: raising two sons; seeing five grandchildren grow up; living in five countries (she loved America as much as her homeland of Estonia); fleeing a terrifying Soviet invasion of her country; serving as a Cub Scout leader; putting Tom and me in a good church and a Christian school where we became spiritually grounded; etc.

I’m so glad I could be with her this weekend and say my goodbyes. I don’t know if she recognized my voice, but her eyes opened at one point on Saturday when I spoke to her and told her I just flew in.

“Precious in the sight of the Lord Is the death of His saints” (Psalms 116:15).

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Mini “Passages” Exhibit Is Coming to the Creation Museum

We have a new exhibit coming to the Creation Museum! A small selection of items from the Passages exhibit, sponsored by the Hobby Lobby chain of arts and crafts stores, will be used in this exhibit that is currently under construction in the Palm Plaza area of the museum. We are converting our old collections room for the purposes of this exhibit that will feature a selection of manuscripts from the Green Collection.

The entire Green Collection is made up of more than 30,000 artifacts, including cuneiform tablets, Dead Sea Scrolls, unpublished papyri, and rare illuminated manuscripts. Additionally, the collection contains parts of the Gutenberg Bible, the Wycliffe Bible, and even tracts and Bibles of Martin Luther. For more information about the Passages touring exhibit, as well as the Bible museum that will open in Washington DC as a permanent home for the Green Collection, visit http://www.explorepassages.com/.  We are thrilled to be able to exhibit a small selection of some of these items at the Creation Museum.

Steve Green, the president of Hobby Lobby, will speak at the Creation Museum during our special dedication ceremony for this extraordinary exhibit on October 18. As we learn what items from this incredible collection will be coming to the Creation Museum (as well as when the exhibit will open), we’ll share it with you so you can start making your plans to visit the Creation Museum and view some of the artifacts in the new Passages exhibit.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

An Ark Raising?

This past Thursday evening, I was in Amish country in Indiana for a special evening to share with people the vision for the Ark Encounter project and ways they can be a partner in this evangelistic outreach.

We were thrilled to be able to hold the special dessert evening in a unique building that was called the “Farmer’s Market.”  This is the largest timber frame building in the USA (built by Amish contractors).  At the widest point it is as wide as Noah’s Ark; at its highest point it is as high as the Ark; and it is about half the length of the Ark.  Here is a photograph I took of the building Thursday evening:

We had a great turn out for this program that was run in what used to be the Farmer’s Market:

Some of the same Amish people who built this wooden peg/timber frame building are going to be a part of building Noah’s Ark.  Praise the Lord for the phenomenal response from those present at this meeting to become a part of what I believe will be a powerful Christian witness for this nation and others around the world.

You Can Still Come To The Conference Next Week

Pastors and other Christian leaders can still register at the door for our “Answers for Pastors” conference that begins this Tuesday at the Creation Museum (September 18–20, 2012). Former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Johnny Hunt, will speak three times.  You can find out more information about this conference at www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/answers-for-pastors.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Zambia Bound!

One of the highlights of an AiG ministry day is the chance to start off with prayer and Bible reading, and often listen to a special speaker. We not only share announcements with the staff, but we often go into Scripture, and on some days we pray for the needs of the ministry and also for people outside our four walls.

Our biggest prayer request is often for those Christians who are ministering overseas, sometimes in hostile situations. On some of our chapel days, we will bring in a missionary to share something about their evangelistic efforts abroad.

This week, we were thrilled to hear an encouraging message from Pastor David Barnhouse of Pennsylvania, who will be leaving in a few months with his family to Zambia, Africa. He’s already been to Zambia many times, and he told our staff that some of our AiG resources have been an absolute blessing to people living in some of the tribal areas of Zambia.

In particular, he is thrilled with our 15-minute film (which we show in the Creation Museum) titled The Last Adam. Pastor Barnhouse said that a Zambian audience (many of the people may not speak English) are riveted by watching the video, including scenes of Christ’s Crucifixion and Resurrection. After showing the video, David or someone else will explain—sometimes in the tribal language—more about the video’s content, but their attention has already been captured.

David informed us that some of the fine gospel films that have been produced over the years presenting the life of Christ (in a variety of languages) are simply too long, and he mentioned that the production values are now somewhat outdated (though God continues to bless the showing of such films, of course).

I encourage you to find out more about Pastor Barnhouse’s new ministry venture in Zambia at the website, www.visionzambia.com.

David was thrilled to tell our staff that he has raised over 90% of his support and is now in the homestretch. He is a big booster of our Creation Museum, and looks forward to bringing more AiG and Creation Museum resources into Zambia to present the gospel. We made sure that he spent time with some of our key staff, and we also donated many of our newest resources for him to bring with him to Zambia as he moves there in a few months.

You can listen to his chapel message here:

David Barnhouse

Me with Pastor Barnhouse and his son Nathan

Here are some interesting photos Pastor Barnhouse shared with us:

Bible Institute in Zambia that uses AiG materials

A bush church in Zambia

Another photo of the bush church

Barnhouse family: David, Maggie, Nathan, Emily, Steven, David

Church going out to do bush evangelism, using AiG videos including The Last Adam

Doing more bush evangelism

As a result of bush evangelism, they are now planting a church

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken