A Response to Bill Nye

First of all, Mr. Nye, I was impressed by the fact that you agreed to debate Ken Ham in such a public arena. It was a thrilling debate to observe :). I want you to know, right up front, that I graduated from Pensacola Christian College with a Bachelor's degree in Science Education. Believe me, I'm all about science. I absolutely love it! But, like Mr. Ham, I'm also a Christian and a Young-Earth Creationist. This, however, does not hamper my view of  or interest in science. There were a few things said in the debate tonight that I wanted to address. I'm not an expert, but I have studied the origins issue for well over a decade (ever since I was about nine), and I have not limited myself to just creation science. I have read Peter Atkins, Paul Davies, John Barrow, Richard Feynman, David Berlinski--none of them Young-Earth Creationists. Please, bear with me as I address these issues.

The first is a question that Mr. Ham never answered (effectively, at least). You asked him to name some prediction (hint: future discovery) that creation science had successively made. He constantly mentioned past predictions (which I agreed with). However, one prediction kept coming to mind as you constantly asked: that of the strengths of planetary magnetic fields. D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. (retired from Sandia National Laboratories), predicted the strengths of the planetary magnetic fields in our Solar System based on the Genesis account. (Dr. Humphreys is known for his work in creation cosmology). He successfully predicted the magnetic field strengths. Here's the link.

You also talked about radioisotope dating. That problem was answered and totally debunked by the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth Project (RATE). The project was 8 years in the undertaking, and the resultant research was published. The two volumes may be published at Christian Book Distributors (on sale!) for $52.99 at this link. I highly recommend that you acquire them. They are well worth the reading.

One problem that you mentioned with the creation model is that of biogeography (the kangaroos on their merry way to Australia). That is somewhat of a conundrum for creationists, but that doesn't mean we aren't working on it. Check out more here.

Once again, thank you so much for an intellectually stimulating debate regarding our origins. I really do hope that this will revive the old creation/evolution debates of the past.

Don't Miss It!

My readers may have heard about the debate coming up very shortly between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. It is scheduled for February 4, at 7 p.m. EST. They will be streaming it live through debatelive.org. Amazingly, all 900 tickets for the debate sold out two minutes after they were up for sale. This result clearly shows that Americans are still very interested in the conflicting theories of origins espoused by evolution and creation. For more information on the debate, you can find it at this link. The debate is not concerned with falsifying the theory of evolution (even though, Darwin's theory of evolution has been falsified many times over in the creation literature--check my favorite sites list for more info). These two men will be debating on the viability of creation science to explain the earth's origins.

Of course, there has been staunch opposition to this debate. Primarily, this opposition has arisen from the atheist camp. Even the prestigious Richard Dawkins has expressed his disapproval in this matter (Dawkins is notorious for refusing to debate creationists). Bill Nye has been urged to back down, yet he won't because he believes it to be a great opportunity to finally bury the creation issue in a public forum.

Surprisingly, a very small amount of support has come from the Intelligent Design camp. To clarify, ID does not necessarily endorse creationist views, and ID is DEFINITELY NOT some form of creationism (happy Mr. Klinghoffer :). Yet David Klinghoffer has expressed his desire to watch the debate. Why? Two reasons: 1) Bill Nye actually has the guts to debate someone who is anti-evolutionist; 2) Ken Ham may be able to finally clarify the differences between ID and creationism. We shall see.

Please pray for Ken Ham. He needs God's wisdom, strength and protection. And, who knows, maybe Bill Nye will get saved because of this. Wouldn't that be ironic!

Is "Intelligent Design" Bankrupt?

According to the Evolution Lobby Committee (in the words of Dawkins), the New Atheists, and most Theistic Evolutionists, the Intelligent Design Movement [IDM] is merely "creationism dressed up in a new tuxedo." However, IDM and the Creation Science Movement both disagree. IDM says that it is different from creation science because it deals only with science--it doesn't depend on and texts or literature. Creation science emphasizes a difference because Intelligent Design does not emphasize the name of the Designer. Because of this, some have taken to referring to Intelligent Design as a "bankrupt theory." I happen to agree with this sentiment.

Intelligent Design prides itself on being unbiased--"following the evidence wherever it leads." Yet, when the evidence leads to a young-earth, or no Big Bang, or an absence of any kind of macroevolution, IDM balks. They are not prepared to entertain THAT kind of evidence! IDM also boasts of not specifying the identity of the Designer. Yet, most of the Intelligent Design Movement are Christians of some shade or fashion. In fact, most are Protestants. And, Protestants have historically taken the stand of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) as advocated by the Reformers. The Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:31: "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." [KJV] Whatever we, as Christians, are to do, we should do it to bring glory and honor to God. This includes honoring Him as Creator.

There is a danger here. A danger that pervades all the ranks in IDM. There are many Christians (and Catholics) who recognize who the Creator is (if not openly, then in secret). But there are Jews, Muslims, and agnostics that subscribe to the IDM, because they see the inherent stupidity of Darwinism. One of the most prominent men in the IDM, David Berlinski, is an eminent philosopher and mathematician. He is a Jew. He is also agnostic. Yet, he recognizes the problems inherent in IDM. He is perfectly fine with bashing Darwinism (which he does quite well!). But he hobnobs with men like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and Phillip Johnson. What's so bad about that? These three men are Christians: they could be a good influence on him. But, he's still an agnostic. Yet he shows no signs of being bitter towards the gospel, so he must not be smothered with it. I can't say this for sure, but the desire to separate the science from God might possibly lead to Christians not directly giving the gospel to those unsaved. Instead, they may try to win them indirectly with evidence and reason, ignoring the work and Person of the Holy Spirit. This is dangerous. What if Berlinski should die? Being Christians, wouldn't most of his colleagues be mortified to know of the condition of his soul? I pray for Berlinski (and Dawkins) every night. I pray for their salvation. When God is distanced from His role as Creator and Designer, He is also often distanced from His role as Savior.

BioLogos Leads the Charge . . .

Many Christians (and non-Christians alike) are familiar with the organization, BioLogos. For those who are not, allow me to identify them and their mission (agenda?). BioLogos is an organization that seeks to unify Christian belief with accepted, consensus mainstream science. In essence, they want to fully integrate evolutionary thinking (accepted, consensus mainstream science) with orthodox Christian doctrine.

Why do they want to do this? Because, in their minds, Christian scholars look flat-out stupid because we accept the Genesis creation account as literal history. They think that Christians will be more accepted into the mainstream science if we accept the evolutionary timescales. By seeking this, BioLogos treads on dangerous grounds. They seek to change the literal straightforward interpretation of God's Word to accommodate to fallible, human reasoning. That's something that I won't even pretend to comprehend. But, let's look at their reasoning. Will accepting evolution really make Christianity more palatable to the secular crowd?

As a prime example, I will use Richard Dawkins. Dawkins really doesn't need an introduction. He is (without question) the most outspoken and popular New Atheist alive today. And, he's not ashamed of what he believes. Contrast his unashamed beliefs with those of two men he debated: Francis Collins and John Lennox. Now, Collins and Lennox are both extremely intelligent men. Collins led the Human Genome Project, and Lennox is a professor of mathematics at Oxford University. But, both men made a mistake when debating Dawkins. They both confessed to belief in evolution. And Dawkins was quick to take them up on their concessions. It was sad to read Dawkins' response to Collins' confession. He questioned Collins on what kind of God would use such a brutal and merciless process as evolution. Collins really had no substantial answer. When Lennox debated Dawkins and confessed, the look of smugness and victory that crossed Dawkins' face as he briefly hammered Lennox about it was heart-breaking. In both cases, I found myself agreeing with Dawkins.

Don't take what I said as my confession to atheism. By no means: in fact, quite the opposite. I agreed with Dawkins, because he was right. And it bolstered my faith. Dawkins was completely unimpressed with two Christian scholars who accepted evolution. And I agreed with him. There is no excuse for a Christian to accept evolutionary theory when it contradicts the plainly written Word of God and even God's Nature. How could a loving God reconcile Himself with the brutalities of evolution? [I may address this in a later blog.] Dawkins' responses clearly showed his contempt for compromising religion with an obviously atheistic worldview. Dawkins has been known for saying that evolution makes it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Dawkins is out to destroy creation science and religion in general. He has no use for cowardly Christians who can't stand up for Biblical beliefs. Compromising with evolution surely didn't get his support.

There is another issue (and I will just briefly touch on this). They want to be accepted. Why? Paul advocates in Romans 12:2 a different philosophy: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. We are not to be part of the world. Notice, also, that Paul said to renew our minds. So, we should not be in line with the world's thinking either. Evolution is part of the world's thinking. We must be separate. Which is more important: God's approval or man's? The choice is yours.

Creation and Design

Oftentimes, proponents of Darwinism confuse creation science with intelligent design. And, almost every time, both creationists and the ID movement respond with a negative. They are not the same thing. Now, creationists do believe in design. And, the ID movement has definite theistic implications (just read Signature in the Cell to find out).

The other day, one of my coworkers brought up the subject of origins. Now, both of us are Christians. Neither of us was debating whether God created, or how. We're also both Young-Earth Creationists (that's really the only position the Bible allows). He brought up the fact that I had been reading a lot of Intelligent Design literature. I affirmed it. He asked why. I told him that I had been reading a lot of Intelligent Design literature rather than Creationist literature because Creationist literature is often written toward the layperson that doesn't necessarily have a background in science. But, most ID literature presumes at least some background in science (especially those books actually published by the Discovery Institute). I prefer to read the more challenging and technical literature. He rejoined with a comment about not believing in ID. This seems to be common objection among Christians. I responded that yes, I do believe in ID. Why shouldn't I?

There are several reasons why a Christian can (and should) accept Intelligent Design:

1) We as Christians believe that God created everything. Because God created everything, He also would have had to design it as well. God is also intelligent. Therefore, I should see evidence of Intelligent Design: and I do.

2) The theory of Intelligent Design is merely a scientific theory. It presupposes no metaphysical or philosophical beliefs before detecting design in nature. However, the metaphysical and philosophical implications of ID often lead to theism (the late astronomer, Allan Sandage, and the biologist, Dean Kenyon, are perfect examples). Intelligent Design has such broad implications that fitting it into creation science is relatively simple (but, remember, they're still distinct modes of inquiry!).

3) Finally, ID seeks to tear down the paradigm that Darwinism has created for science. In some ways, ID is more qualified to do this than Creationism because it doesn't come with any religious underpinnings. Scientists are more prone to doubt Darwin than accept creationism. And, we can't convert them to creationism (and Christ) without first making them doubt Darwin. ID accomplishes this. Also, because ID is hostile toward Darwinism, it tends to be rather benign towards creation science. Of all the anti-evolution theories, ID is the one that has not attacked creation science. In fact, in some ways, ID has found an ally in creation science.

These different reasons give indication that ID is compatible with creation science. Now, obviously, not every person in ID is a Young-Earth Creationist. Some believe in the Big Bang (which Young-Earth Creationism normally opposes), common descent, and a very old Earth. But, as a creationist, I can believe in ID, because I do believe that God marvelously created this wonderful universe that we live in.