My Thoughts on the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate

I as a biblical creationist believe that Ken Ham's position is most valid. End of story. Tune in next Monday for my next blog!

Okay, just kidding. I believe that Ken Ham has it easy. He has a degree in science, real operational science, whereas Nye studied engineering. What does engineering have to do with evolution? All Nye did was criticize creationists for indoctrinating children and calling it "child abuse". Says the guy who supports a theory that says that everyone, including those precious children he was talking about, are useless, that they don't have a purpose here, and that life is basically worthless. Yeah, you keep doing that, Bill. Meanwhile, Ham would be gathering whatever his scientists and journalists gathered to utterly destroy Nye. I kinda feel bad for Nye, now that I think about it.

But anyhoo, I'm rooting (and praying) for you all the way, Ken Ham. I'll be sure to watch the live stream, and hopefully I'll be able to get the "uncensored" DVD.  More information here: http://debatelive.org/

Okay, I'm serious this time when I tell you to tune in next Monday for my next blog. :-)

How Evolution Fails to Explain Ethics & Morality

• "If it hurts the other organism, then it's wrong. Millions of years of evolution has taught us that."
• "It's wrong if God says it's wrong."

Which answer best explains the origin of ethics and morality? Well, let's look deeper into both statements.

Evolution claims that we humans learned over the eons that if it hurts the other person, then it's wrong. So basically, you can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. However, since people live in different places, people develop different views on what is "moral". Therefore, what one person sees as "moral" may not be "moral" to another. This is relative morality, which may also be known as subjective morality.

Special creation states that God decides what is "moral" and "immoral". Since He created us, He has the right to make the rules for us. What God decides as "right", it is so.

Atheists like to argue, "Well, God ordered the death of entire city populations." They argue this without knowledge of the context. They do not read why God ordered their deaths; they cut that part out and highlight the part that says "God ordered their deaths". But really, why did God order peoples' deaths? Because they were so evil, they needed to be blotted out of the face of the earth. Take the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, for example. They were so immoral, and they were so stubborn not to repent, that God decided to wipe them out of existence. The argument that God ordered the deaths of many people is nullified. Also, note how this argument doesn't have to do anything with morality, only that God ordered deaths. Therefore, this argument is invalid.

Now back to relative morality. Relative morality basically says that each society makes their own rules. But if relative morality were true, then what Hitler did to the Jews was not subjectively wrong. It may be wrong to us, but he gets to make the rules for his society, right? If relative morality were true, then we shouldn't have tried to stop Hitler. We shouldn't have stopped the Japanese from invading Nanking and raping and murdering 300,000 people. Because what they did was not wrong according to their society. So why bother?

But objective morality, or the belief that there are objective moral absolutes, says that there is an ultimate standard for what is right and what is wrong. And it's God who does that. It was Him who said that murder was wrong. It was Him who said that thievery was wrong. It was Him who said that lying is wrong and obeying your parents is right. If we made up our own rules, we would do whatever we want, including murder, steal, lie, and disobey your parents (and liberals what you to "break free of prescription", the prescription they gave you, and "set your own rules"). We'd end up like Sodom and Gomorrah, for crying out loud!

So in the end, the evolutionary explanation for ethics and morality is wrong because it tells us that morality is decided by society, but that would mean that we should have left Hitler alone. On the other hand, the creation explanation for the origin of ethics and morality is right because it tells us that there is an ultimate standard for right and wrong, which applies to everyone.

See Can evolution determine right and wrong?, Why is Scripture the Ultimate Standard for Morality and Ethics?, Ethics and Justice, and The creation basis for morality.

Tune in tomorrow for the final blog of the week: My Thoughts on the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate!

Can God and Darwin Fit Together?

People like Hugh Ross, Greg Neyman and Walter Kaiser, Jr. think they can manipulate and reinterpret Scripture to fit secular explanations for the origin of the Universe. Some call that aligning Scripture with the evidence. Others call it "politically correct". People like me would call that "compromise". (See Refuting Compromise (Dr. Jonathan Sarfati))

So what's wrong with theistic evolution? Let's go over my main points, and I'll expand:

• It doesn't fit the evidence
• It's reinterpreting Scripture, undermining its authority
• It doesn't fit God's character

Point 1) It doesn't fit the evidence

I've posted many, many articles regarding the problems with a secular explanation of the origin of the Universe (Big Bang and naturalistic evolution) in my Google+ community Biblical Creation Apologetics (you can see the evidence here). All that applies to theistic evolution as well. If the secular explanation is refuted, then compromise is destroyed as well. Theistic evolution is essentially the neo-Darwinian synthesis with a "God" sticker slapped onto it (I always illustrate it that way when I'm talking to theistic evolutionists).

Point 2) It's reinterpreting Scripture, undermining its authority

Where in the Bible does it say millions of years? And when did death and suffering begin? These questions stumped prominent theistic evolutionist Hugh Ross. Sure, the Bible doesn't specifically say 6,000 years either, but biblical chronology and biblical bloodlines only stretch as far back as 6,000 years. Also, when Jesus referred to Genesis, He interpreted it in a literal sense (see Jesus on the age of the earth). Therefore, Jesus Himself refuted day-age creationists. 

Furthermore, since the theistic evolution theory requires guided natural selection (kind of an oxymoron, if you ask me), then death is required. And if it took millions of years of death and adaptation to produce humankind, then how did death come before Adam? If you recall from the Genesis account, death occurred after Adam sinned. So how did death occur before Adam? Also, fossils of thorns were found in rock layers before we see human fossils. And if the rocks at the bottom are older than the ones on top (according to evolutionary thinking), then how did thorns appear before Adam (thorns are also the result of Adam's fall)? No theistic evolutionist has answered these questions. All Hugh Ross and Walter Kaiser did was dodge the question in their debate against Ken Ham and Jason Lisle. Watch this video (or just listen to it, it's just audio):

Point 3) It doesn't fit God's character

Why would God put some bacteria on a blown-up planet and leave them to develop on its own? Why would He use millions of years of mutations and death to produce us? If He were to demonstrate His power, wouldn't He have just created us much faster? Theistic evolution just doesn't fit God's character. God wouldn't leave us to evolve on our own, because He loves and cares for us, and He would take care in designing His creation. He wouldn't use millions of years of mutations and death because He intended us to be perfect, blameless, and immortal. God wouldn't take millions of years to create us because that would fail to show His creative power.

At the end of the day, theistic evolution fails. It fails because it doesn't fit the evidence, it's unscriptural, and it doesn't fit God's character. So no, God and Darwin cannot fit together. Refuting theistic evolutionists is relatively easy. Just point out how it's unscriptural, point to the evidence, and their belief is destroyed. You can use these tips for your next debate with them. Tune in tomorrow for my next blog: How Evolution Fails to Explain Ethics & Morality!

A Tale of Two Forms

The search for missing links has gone on for decades. If paleontologists have been looking for them for that long, you'd expect them to come back with boat-loads of transitional forms. But you haven't. So where are they?

You were probably indoctrinated with the notion that Archaeopteryx was the transition from reptiles to birds, but that is not the case. "But it had feathers, a wishbone, and asymmetrical feathers. This shows it was part bird. It also had teeth, claws on its wings, and bones it its tail, all of which birds lack, but reptiles have." I can see how this can be evidence for evolution, but my view is that these features make it a "mosaic" of both animal groups, as CMI puts it (but it resembles a bird so much that it might as well be an actual bird). Also, there are no fossils showing the transition between scale and feather. In fact, there are no fossil links in the fossil record connecting it to birds or reptiles. "True" birds were actually found below the place where Archaeopteryx was found, and according to Darwinists, lower fossils mean older fossils.  Furthermore, the way its neck was found indicates that it drowned (possibly in a global flood!). See Archaeopteryx‎ and Archaeopteryx is a Bird

You may have heard of Australopithecus afarensis, also known as Lucy. She is supposed to be the ancestor of mankind. But get this: her hips were modified to look like human hips. Also, the hand bones were never found, so we can't even conclude if her hands were "human-like". Most scientists now conclude that she was actually a type of pygmy chimp. Watch this video:

See also: A Look at Lucy's Legacy, Evolution's Hall of Shame, and Lucy's Hips.

I've only listed two (famous) "transitional forms", but if you have any other missing links that you want me to cover, or if you have questions, comment below! Also, tomorrow I will be discussing theistic evolution!