I just read Ken Ham’s article on genesis/dinosaurs. I found it very interesting to hear someone’s biblical perspective of the existence of dinosaurs. I learned some things that I didn’t realize existed in the bible, so thank you for that.
I am not an evolutionist or a strict believer in the bible (aside from the morals it encourages people to follow, which I believe is the most important part).
To be honest, it irks me to read biased articles from either side. Believers of the church will clearly interpret the bible as they see fit to justify claims that evolutionists have made, while evolutionists will challenge many things written in the bible because that’s the nature of the job.
Here is a quote from your article:
“You see, no matter what is found, or how embarrassing it is to evolutionists’ ideas, they will always be able to concoct an ‘answer’ because evolution is a belief. It is not science; it is not fact!”
That sounds like it’s written out of anger and frustration towards the opposition, rather than out rationality. As a man of the church I am sure you can admit that believing in god is a leap of faith ( not a science). By definition, the words in the bible are not fact because they can’t be proven (again, this is not to say that I don’t believe in god, or in the life lessons the bible represents).
Statements like that will make the followers of the church happy because you “stuck it to the evolutionists”, but I would suspect that the point of your organization is to get the undecided people to realize that the bible left no stones unturned.
In the end, I just don’t like the black vs white approach that so many people have taken. I just wish more people would address all sides, rather than always making it an attack on the opposition.
– C.W.

I just read Ken Ham’s article on genesis/dinosaurs. I found it very interesting to hear someone’s biblical perspective of the existence of dinosaurs. I learned some things that I didn’t realize existed in the bible, so thank you for that.

You’re welcome. We appreciate the kind and encouraging words. One of the main purposes of the ministry is to get the information out there.

I am not an evolutionist or a strict believer in the bible (aside from the morals it encourages people to follow, which I believe is the most important part).

How can you believe only the “moral” parts are important? And by what standard do you determine this? I’m sure you would agree that Jesus lived and taught many good morals we should follow. However, this is based on the fact that He, as the Creator God, has set these absolute moral standards.

One cannot accept Jesus’s “moral” teachings while excluding His claims of deity. Either He lied or the Bible misquoted Him. If either or both are the case, then it would result in an immoral (i.e., lying) Jesus teaching morality and/or an unreliable source of morality. Either way, a lying moralist falsely claiming to be God or a questionable record cannot be taken seriously. So, to accept the Bible as only a book of morals reduces Jesus to a motivational life coach. He then ceases being God, and His morals become subjective and pointless.

The idea that the Bible is simply a code of ethics or a moral guide is self-defeating. Any absolute morals need to be rooted in an absolute source. Jesus’s claims of absolute authority (Matthew 28:18) are essential to understanding His (moral) teachings. The two cannot be separated because both are foundational for either to be true. Scripture tells us that God is (1) unchanging (Malachi 3:6a; Hebrews 13:8; James 1:17), is (2) all-knowing (Job 37:16; Isaiah 46:9–10), and only He is (3) good (Mark 10:18; 1 John 1:5).

  1. Since God is unchanging, right and wrong do not change. Murder, rape, homosexuality, and drunkenness will always be wrong. God’s nature does not change from situation to situation; therefore, neither does morality.
  2. God knows everything that is right and wrong (good and evil), since all that is good stems from His nature.
  3. Only God is good; therefore, everything that is good is defined by Him and is rooted in His nature. That which is not good is that which is contrary to His nature.

If we leave God out of the equation we no longer have an absolute source for morality. This means that right and wrong, good and evil, are no longer unchanging but subjective. They simply become conventions of an individual’s perceptions or societal exceptions. That means one person or society could believe that genocide is evil, whereas another might view it as acceptable—like Hitler’s Germany. But the murdering of innocent lives isn’t wrong because of opinions, standards of society, or survival tactics. It is wrong because God values human life, is the giver of life (temporal and eternal), and created man in His own image (Genesis 9:6).

Jesus also warns against believing only certain parts of His Word (John 3:12, 5:46). If you can’t believe Him for the earthly things (e.g., creation) that you can see, how can you believe Him for the heavenly things like morality?

To be honest, it irks me to read biased articles from either side. Believers of the church will clearly interpret the bible as they see fit to justify claims that evolutionists have made, while evolutionists will challenge many things written in the bible because that’s the nature of the job.

Why does it irk you? Just because you claim to be equally offended by both evolutionists and Christians does not mean you’re an unbiased observer. Being “irked” actually demonstrates that you have a standard by which you judge what someone has written. And that is, by definition, a bias. It’s impossible to be unbiased about this issue (or any other for that matter). Everyone has a bias—either for or against the Bible (Matthew 12:30).

Sadly, some Christians do try to justify what evolutionists have concocted by mixing their naturalistic ideas with the Bible and compromising its clear message. These Christians are usually labeled “old-earth creationists” or “theistic evolutionists.” Christians who adhere to the Bible as their complete authority must counter the claims of evolutionists, since the claims of evolution directly contradict Scripture. And as Christians, we are commanded to counter such arguments, false ideas, and incorrect doctrine (2 Corinthians 10:5; 1 Timothy 6:3–5, 20–21; 2 Timothy 2:24–26; 4:1–4; Titus 1:9).

It’s not the “nature of their job” to question the Bible, but the nature of man (Romans 1:19–25). They don’t want the Bible to be true, so they attack it. Science, in its purest sense, means gaining knowledge about the world and universe we live in. God created everything (Genesis 1–2:3; Colossians 1:16), and He created everything to be governed by specific physical and chemical laws (Jeremiah 33:25) so that creation runs in an orderly, systematic, logical, and predictable manner. This is why science is possible (for more on this please read God & Natural Law).

Angry Quotes?

Here is a quote from your article:
“You see, no matter what is found, or how embarrassing it is to evolutionists’ ideas, they will always be able to concoct an ‘answer’ because evolution is a belief. It is not science; it is not fact!”
That sounds like it’s written out of anger and frustration towards the opposition, rather than out rationality.

What you’re stating here is known as “false cause.” Basically, you seem to be hinting that Ken is making that statement because he is frustrated with evolutionists. Although frustration could easily stem from the truth of the statement, that is not the case here. While tone can be difficult to convey in an article, I assure you he does not state it out of frustration. Besides, whether or not Ken made this statement out of anger and frustration is irrelevant. The statement is true regardless of his mood.

Here are a few quotes from evolutionists that show the truth of what Ken said:

“Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.”1
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”2
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”3

Evolutionists have quite a bit of faith in their assumptions and consequent hypotheses. When they can’t make sense of the evidence, they simply incorporate rescuing devices (e.g., the Oort Cloud).

True and Logical Faith

As a man of the church I am sure you can admit that believing in god is a leap of faith ( not a science).

Believing in the God of the Bible is not just a “leap of faith,” but true and logical faith. It makes sense. Without the God of the Bible, nothing could make sense (please read Feedback: Logic or Faith?).

Here you seem to be making the common mistake that faith and science are diametrically opposed. Faith is defined as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). Now, for the definitions of science:

noun
  1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
  2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
  3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
  4. systematized knowledge in general.
  5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
  6. a particular branch of knowledge.
  7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Though the two words have different definitions, they are by no means in opposition to each other. It is actually biblical faith that makes science possible. For example, since God created everything to operate by certain natural laws (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25)—like the laws of gravitation—we know that planets will orbit the sun in a consistent and predictable manner. We take for granted these facts when observing and experimenting with repeatable phenomena. When scientists use the scientific method they are actually borrowing from the Christian faith.

By definition, the words in the bible are not fact because they can’t be proven (again, this is not to say that I don’t believe in god, or in the life lessons the bible represents).

The Bible is true, not because it has been proven true, but because if it weren’t true, then the ability to reason would not exist, morality would not exist, and we would not exist. For more on this please read Revelation, Speculation, and Science.

If you don’t know what in the Bible is true, how do you decide what to use and what not to use? In essence, you are pushing for a humanistic worldview (man is the ultimate authority, not God), which is opposed to the Bible.

What you have here is a double standard—in essence, a self-refutation. You say that the words of the Bible are not fact, yet you accept certain morals and life lessons of the Bible as true. In doing this you have raised yourself as an authority over the Word of God by deciding what is true (i.e., “important”). This sort of reasoning is arbitrary and contrary to what Scripture teaches.

2 Timothy 3:16–18
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Peter 1:20–21
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!”
Statements like that will make the followers of the church happy because you “stuck it to the evolutionists”, but I would suspect that the point of your organization is to get the undecided people to realize that the bible left no stones unturned.

While the Bible does say “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV), this is not our main focus. The main purpose of the ministry is to present the full gospel, starting from the very beginning (Genesis 1:1). The Bible gives us a framework through which we view, interpret, and live in the world. So yes, it does leave “no stones unturned.”

In the end, I just don’t like the black vs white approach that so many people have taken.

You say this here, but it is the very approach you have taken with Scripture. In this approach, you are acting as the authority—not God. This is actually a humanistic way of approaching the Bible. Instead of allowing God’s Word to show what is black and white in your life, you have simply chosen for yourself—like deciding which morals are important and then saying the rest is not.

The Bible is black and white by its nature, not because of anything we try to impose or impress upon it. And that’s what morals are about—black and white, right and wrong, good and evil.

I just wish more people would address all sides, rather than always making it an attack on the opposition.

This assumes that one can be unbiased in their approach to Scripture. However, this is impossible for anyone. One either wholly believes the Scriptures or does not. There is no in-between, no neutral ground (Matthew 12:30). By your statement, you’re actually taking a side—the side that states, “Did God really say?” (Genesis 3:1).

It is our hope and mission that every person believe the Word of God (from the beginning) and place their faith in Christ as Lord and Savior—rather than in themselves. I pray this for you.

In Him,
David Wright

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

  1. G. Burbidge, “Why Only One Big Bang?,” Scientific American, 266 no. 2 (1992): 96. Back
  2. S.C. Todd, Correspondence, Nature 401 no. 6752 (September 30, 1999): 423. Back
  3. Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31. Back