Bill Nye on video lying about evidence!

Bill Nye on video lying about evidence! I wrote that headline to grab people's attention. It's a little sensational, I'll admit, but I still mean it to be literal. I'm referring to the 2 hour video released by Answers in Genesis where Nye debates Ken during a tour of the recently opened Ark Encounter. Is it just me or is Nye really that rude of a person? He referred to several AiG staff scientists as “incompetent,” despite their doctorate degrees from reputable colleges like Harvard or Ohio State; he told Ken Ham he needed to study geology more; he told Ark visitors they needed to go to university; and concluded his tour saying that he couldn't be friends with someone like Ken Ham, though he might try to rescue him if he were drowning or something like that. That last comment was real big of you Nye! //RKBentley rolls his eyes// Look, there are people with whom I disagree but who aren't jerks. Bill Nye is a jerk. Maybe it's not very Christian of me to say that. I must say that Ken Ham was very gracious with Nye, even praying for him after Nye's comment that he might rescue him from drowning (which I guess also means he might not). But you can see in the video that Nye seemed to annoy even Ham at different times.

Anyway, back to my point of Nye lying. I haven't counted, but I would guess Nye used the term, “evidence” at least fifty times during his tour of the Ark. How he used the term, though, was often, grossly misleading.

Before I get into Nye's use of the word, let me talk a little bit about what evidence is and what it's not. Evidence is raw data. It's facts or observations. Contrary to the popular expression, facts don't really speak for themselves. Evidence just is. What we do, then, is look at the evidence and invent theories to try to explain why the evidence is the way it is. What is this thing? How did it get here? What might I conclude from it? Theories are our attempts to make sense of the evidence. A good theory should seem to explain the evidence reasonably well. In any case, the evidence itself is mute and doesn't care about our theories. In other words, the evidence is never really “for” a theory.

Some people, like Nye, conflate their theories with the evidence. During the video, Nye routinely makes comments like (paraphrasing), “All the evidence says that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.” Do you see what I mean? The evidence doesn't say anything. Bill Nye subscribes to a theory – his interpretation of the evidence – that says the earth is billions of years old. But he never says, “My theory is that the earth is billions of years old”; he merely repeats over and over, “The evidence says it.”

Evolutionists believe they have a monopoly on the evidence. It's sort of a game of dibs where, once evolutionists explain the evidence, that evidence is not available to explained by any other theory. The earth can't be young because they've already said it's old. There is no evidence for creation because it's already been used for evolution! Evolutionists do this so that when we disagree with their theory, it looks like we're disagreeing with the evidence. Tsk, tsk.

Nye certainly did this in the video. On a couple of occasions, Ken Ham tried to pin Nye down on the differences between the evidence and the conclusions we draw on the evidence. About 52 minutes into the video, for example, Ham and Nye are talking about tree rings. It's Nye's contention that there are living trees that can be dated to before the time of the Flood based on their rings. Ham counters that the rings aren't evidence in the sense that Nye is using them. Rings are something that simply exist in the present. We could count the rings of a tree and extrapolate backwards (4,000 rings means 4,000 years old) but we know that trees sometimes grow more than one ring per year. So 4,000 rings is the evidence and 4,000 years is a conclusion about the evidence. Even after Nye acknowledged that multiple rings can grow in trees each year, when Ham asked him if he could then be wrong about his conclusion, Nye stubbornly refused to concede even that simple point. “No. Absolutely not,” Nye says, “.... My interpretation with respect to the age on the earth in this regard is absolutely correct.” Time after time during the entire video, Nye offers his theory while calling it the evidence.

But look, if all Nye did was conflate his theory with the evidence, I wouldn't necessarily say he was “lying” - though it is still grossly misleading. However, Nye made other statements that were even more misleading. At about 1:17 in the video, Ken Ham mentions the account in Joshua where the sun stopped in the sky. Bill Nye replies, “Why would it do that? There's no evidence for that.”

That's very curious. What type of evidence would Bill Nye expect there to be for such an event? Historical events cannot be studied scientifically. I could ask, for example, “Where is the evidence that George Washington crossed the Delaware?” You can't study the river and discover it. The only way we can know it happened is because people who lived at the time wrote that it happened. The written accounts are the only evidence we have. And the evidence we have for Washington's crossing of the Delaware is the same evidence we have for Joshua's long day. Nye doesn't have to believe the written account but to say there is no evidence is a lie.

From there, Nye segues into a point he made several times in the video. He defines science to mean “the search for a natural explanation.” According to Nye, any time you invoke a miracle, it's not science. Of course, however a person defines science does not change what is true. If God stopped the motion of the planets for 12 hours, then that is what happened regardless if Nye thinks it's scientific. Nye desperately wants people to believe that, if something isn't scientific, it's not true. Nye told Ham he was “absolutely” wrong about Joshua's long day. Such a rebuke implies that Nye has absolute knowledge of the event. We know he doesn't. Therefore, Nye's continuous appeals to the “evidence” or to an arbitrary definition of science is pure bluff.

This leads me to Nye's most blatant lie about evidence. While Nye was waxing on about the account from Joshua and how science does not allow miracles, Ham interrupts him and asks, “Why should I accept your definition [of science]?” Nye pauses for a moment, then, with a straight face, replies, “Because we have so much evidence for it.”

You can watch him make the offensive remark at 1:18 on the video. Nye actually claims there is evidence for natural-only definition of science. Incredible! Please, Nye, show me this evidence! Where in the universe can I observe it? Can I put it under a microscope or weigh it on a scale or hold it against a ruler? Can I put it in a test tube?

Perhaps Nye is ignorant about how much of science is based on philosophy rather then evidence. In one Big Think video, Nye admits he's skeptical of some of the claims of philosophy. What he doesn't seem to realize is that his “natural only” view of the universe has a philosophical premise. It's a tenet of science – a belief akin to religious faith.

In his dogged determination to prove Ken Ham wrong, Nye repeated the word “evidence” over and over and over. He said there was no evidence for miracles but there was evidence for his definition of science. Watch the video for yourself. Time and time again, Nye lied about evidence.

Maybe Ken Ham is wrong but Bill Nye is more wrong!

Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis, holds that there are two types of science: observational science and historical science. His point is simply that there are things we can observe in the here and now and there are some things that happened in the past that can't be observed. It's not a hard concept to grasp, really, although I wouldn't necessarily use the terms myself.

Ham made this point very clearly in his debate with Bill Nye. Nye, indeed, most critics of creationism, utterly reject the idea of any distinction between studying something in the present and studying something that happened in the past. During the debate, Nye said, “So here tonight we are going to have two stories, and we can compare Mr. Ham's story to the story from the outside, what I call mainstream science. The question here tonight is, does Ken Ham's creation model hold up? Is it viable? So let me ask you, what would you be doing if you weren't here tonight? You'd be home watching CSI TV show, CSI-Petersburg. I think that's coming. And on CSI, there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science. These are constructs unique to Mr. Ham. We don't normally have these anywhere in the world except here.”

Like I've already said, I wouldn't use the terms “historical science” and “observational science.” The simple fact of the matter is that all science is conducted in the present. Even in the case of forensic science (as in the CSI crime show), we still examine the evidence in the present. For example, if I have a suspected murder weapon, I can fire a bullet from the gun and compare it to a bullet found at a crime scene. If they are similar enough, I might conclude the suspect weapon is the same weapon used at the crime scene. So even though I'd be making a conclusion about a past event, it's based on science being done in the present. We can draw conclusions – even correct conclusions – about something that happened in the past but we can't observe the past. We only ever conduct science in the present. Get it?

Now, while I may disagree with Ham on his use of the terms “observational” and “historical” science, I disagree even more with critics like Nye who would have us believe we can observe the age of the earth in a similar way that we can observe the earth is round. In their haste to dispel any distinction between “observational” and “historical” science, folks like Nye intentionally blur the distinction between facts observed in the present and conclusions made about the past!

In an appearance on Larry King Now, Bill Nye made this following comment:

My concern has always been you can't use tax dollars intended for science education to teach something akin to the earth is 10,000 years old. To... 'cause that's just wrong. It's very much analogous to saying the earth is flat. I mean, you can show the earth is not flat; you can show the earth is not 10,000 years old.

Perhaps what Nye means to say is that he can show us things like the decay rate of radioisotopes and explain how scientists use this to estimate the age of the earth. But that's not what he is saying. What's he's saying is that he can show us the age of the earth just like he can show us its shape and I'm saying no he can't. We can observe the shape of the earth from space. We can watch it rotate in real time. We can sail, fly, and for the most part even drive around the entire earth and see it has no edges anywhere. We can observe many features about the earth but we cannot observe its age. No way. No how. “Age” is simply not a substance you can hold against a ruler, put under a microscope, or weigh on a scale.

In their rush to condemn any distinction between historical and observational science, evolutionists happily conflate observations we make in the present with conclusions we draw about the past. They should be embarrassed that they seem completely unable to grasp a point that should be painfully obvious. Of course, I don't care that evolutionists embarrass themselves. I do care that people like Nye, and groups like the National Center for Science Education, seem bent on teaching kids that we can observe molecules-to-man evolution or billions of years.

How can we trust people like Nye to educate our kids when they seem less interested in teaching them to think critically and more interested in indoctrinating them into evolution? Does Bill Nye understand the difference between making observations and drawing conclusions? If he doesn't, then he's not the scientist people think he is. If he does, then he's just a liar. Either way, I don't want his influence in schools.  

More Liberal Bigotry

Liberals are bigots. It's a symptom of their ideology - an inevitable consequence of their political agenda. Bigotry is as fundamental to liberalism as swimming is to fish. You cannot be a liberal without being a bigot. Liberals, for example, see every black face as a victim. They don't believe blacks are able to take care of themselves so they must be subsidized with tax payer dollars. Liberals stereotypically believe every black person is the same – they think the same, they struggle the same, and they are all equally victims of whites. Never mind Dr. King's dream that men should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, if a black man wants a job, or to go to college, or to start a business, liberals automatically think he needs special consideration because he's black. The color of his skin is the first criterion liberals consider. It's called, “affirmative action.” To liberals, blacks are “disadvantaged” as though being black is like being handicapped.

Because they are bigots in their very core, liberals are blind to they own bigotry. It's kind of like that stinky person who can't smell his own body odor. If a conservative should disagree with a black person about anything, then liberals assume the conservative is only disagreeing with the person because he's black. They just can't understand the concept of judging a person (even a black person) by his actions or words. Likewise, if conservatives talk about “welfare reform,” liberals accuse them of racism because the liberals think most people on welfare are black. And heaven forbid if a black person dares to believe he's not a victim and works hard to improve himself because then that person is accused of trying to “act white” and labeled an “Uncle Tom.”

I moved to Kentucky in the summer of 1970, when I was only 4 years old. Even though I was a more than a decade removed from Segregation, I remember some of the racial tensions that still lingered in the South. Being white myself, I can't say I can entirely empathize with the struggles blacks faced in the 50's but I can at least say I'm sympathetic to it. I can imagine, at least a little, the smoldering defiance Rosa Parks must have felt when she refused to give up her seat to a white man and move to the back of the bus.

Certainly there was racism then. For the record, I'm against racism but I'm still for liberty. If a person wants to be racist, I think it's his right to be a racist. However, the real problem wasn't necessarily the racist attitudes that were prevalent at the time but rather it was the segregation laws that put teeth in racism. For example, it would be sad if a black man wouldn't marry a white woman for fear they might be shunned by a racist society. It's a far worse thing, though, to make laws against interracial marriage. It was the laws allowing segregation that truly made blacks the victims of racists.

Democrats back then were all for institutional racism. For example, it was Democrat governor, George Wallace, who stood blocking the steps to a segregated school in Alabama and said, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Since then, Democrats may have officially denounced segregation, but they are still not able to divorce themselves from the racism inherent in the liberal wing of the Democrat party.

So where am I going with all this? I mention this now because here in my own beloved state of Kentucky, liberal Democrats have abused the power of their office to impose their racism on another class of people – Bible believing Christians. Just recently, our Democrat Secretary of State, Bob Stewart, advised Ark Encounter, LLC, the group building the Noah's ark themed attraction in KY, that the state has changed its mind on the group's application for a tax incentive KY makes available to tourist attractions. The Ark Encounter will not be receiving the incentive after all.

When I first wrote about the Ark Encounter project 4 years ago, it had already been approved to receive a special tax incentive the state of KY makes available to lure tourist attractions here. It's not really a subsidy, per se. Instead, new tourist attractions can receive a partial rebate of the amount of sales tax they generate for the state. In other words, for every sales tax dollar the state receives from Ark Encounter visitors, they would give a few cents back to the park. So it doesn't cost the state any money – the state is making money from the park. What's more, it's only paying the incentive out of funds received by people visiting the park! No money is being taken from property taxes, income taxes, etc.

Some other attractions in KY that have received this same incentive are the Newport Aquarium and the Kentucky Speedway.

When the park originally applied for the incentive, it was clear this was a for-profit endeavor but was still overtly religious in nature. From the get go, folks like Barry Lynn objected to a religious organization receiving “tax payer funding” but the incentives were approved notwithstanding. With that approval in hand, the group raised the necessary funds, purchased the land, got the permits, and began building. Now, the state has changed its mind and told the group they will not receive the incentive after all. They claim to object on the grounds that AiG intends to use the park to proselytize (AiG has always been very clear about this) and that workers are required to sign a faith statement – which is a federal right for religious organizations. So the objections sound rather shallow since very little has changed about the park's stated goals since the state approved the original application.

I'm not sure how much the group relied on this incentive to make its decision on where to build but I know it was at least a factor. Its location is only a few miles away from OH and IN so the group had other options on where it could build and still be reasonably close to the Creation Museum. It's a rather dirty trick to lure the business in with the incentive and then take it away after it's too late to change its mind.

But besides that, what annoys me the most about all this is how the state is hurting Christians with its racist policies. We saw the same thing when the Boston Mayor wanted to ban Chick-fil-A because its president supported traditional marriage or the confiscatory fines levied against Hobby Lobby because they did not want to pay for employees' abortion inducing drug prescriptions. Time after time, the government treats religious people and businesses as second class citizens. Sec. Stewart said in his letter that the Ark Encounter, “will generate jobs and visitor spending that will be welcomed in the local economy.” I'm sure it will and he is happy to accept it; he just won't offer the same incentive KY has given to non-religious attractions. It's sort of like the bus driver who didn't mind receiving a fare from Rosa Parks but still didn't want her to sit in the white people's section.

If this were a black owned business, Democrats would be falling all over themselves to give away subsidies because they believe blacks can't run a business without help from white liberals. But this is a Christian owned business and they treat Christians differently. They can't see how refusing to give a religious business the same incentive available to anyone else is discrimination.

I'll say it again. Liberals are bigots.

Dutch Carpenter Builds a Full Sized Ark

This week, a Dutch builder, Johan Huibers finally realized his decades old dream of building a full scale “replica” of Noah's Ark. I use the word “replica” loosely because we really don't know much about what the original ark looked like. According to Genesis 6, the Ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, 30 cubits high, had 3 levels, a door, a one cubit high window, was made of “gopher wood,” and was covered in pitch. That's everything we know about the Ark's construction.

Not knowing any more about the Ark than the brief description given in Genesis, Huibers certainly has taken a few liberties. His modern version is true to scale but, beyond that, I'm not sure how much it resembles the original Ark. The modern ark is reinforced with steel, stocked with plastic animals, has theater-style conference rooms, and is powered by a motor.

We also don't know much about the man who built this. Most sources identify Huibers as a “creationist” but I can't tell from the reports if he is a young-earth creationist or if he believes in a global flood.

Several news reports say that he was “inspired” to build the ark 20 years ago when he had a dream that part of Holland was flooded. That may have given him the idea but I'm still not sure of his objective. The news stories call the ark a “floating faux zoo” and say that Huibers intends to make it a first-rate, tourist attraction. An article published by AiG's “Answers” magazine a few years ago says that Huibers hoped his first ark, a ½ scale version, would “bring renewed interest in Christianity to the Netherlands.” That's certainly a worthwhile goal.

As usual, the media has exercised shoddy investigation in covering this story. One article said the following:

This feat of true biblical proportions was inspired by a dream Mr Huibers had 20 years ago, in which he saw part of his native Netherlands submerged in a flood like the one featured in the Book of Genesis.

Do you see what I mean? However bad the flood was 20 years ago, it was nothing “like the one featured in the Book of Genesis.” Later the article says:

And though it may not be able to shelter two of every animal, as the original story dictates, it can hold 1,500 people – not to mention a menagerie of life-size plastic creatures including giraffes, elephants and donkeys, as well as a few live chickens.

What do they mean, “it may not be able to shelter two of every animal”? The article may mention that Noah's Ark was more than ½ the size of the Titanic but little else is said about the enormity of the Ark. It doesn't speculate how many animals truly could have fit on a ship this size but instead amusingly highlights the plastic animals used on the replica. Admittedly the story is meant to be more of a human interest piece than a substantive, in-depth report but this article seems to go out of its way to make light of Huibers replica.

Finally, still another article said:

As far as God’s command to Noah that the ark be stocked with two of everything in the animal kingdom, Huibers steered a wide berth around animal rights activists and opted for inanimate models instead — and indeed, the ship now boasts faux giraffes, zebras, cows and donkeys by the pair.

God did not command Noah to stock “two of everything in the animal kingdom” but specifically told him to include terrestrial animals who breathed air. And by the way, zebras and donkeys belong to the same “kind” and so both would not have been on the Ark.

Shoddy journalism aside, the most unfortunate thing for me is that I'm not a world traveler so it's not likely that I'll ever have the opportunity to see this ark in person. Even so, I would still say that I'm excited it was built. Such a thing could be a wonderful tool in reminding people of the judgment of God as well as His mercy. At the very least, this will generate discussion around the Bible. It already has.

Russell Crowe as Noah

Hollywood is making a new film with a biblical theme. This time, it's an adaptation of the biblical the account of Noah with Russell Crowe being cast in the leading role. After the wildly successful, The Passion of the Christ, I would have thought Hollywood would have caught on that people want to see these kinds of films and studios would start producing more of them. I guess it's not always about money for liberals. They have their standards too. Some just can't bring themselves to make a movie portraying the Bible in a favorable light no matter how successful the movie might be.

Some Christian movies made over the last several years have suffered from small budgets. This new endeavor, on the other hand, will have an estimated budget of $130 million. That sounds like plenty of money for special effects and all the other things that might make an epic adventure successful. I wonder if any critics are going to protest the cost of the movie the same way they have protested the Ark Encounter. $130 million could feed a lot of starving children in third world countries. These same critics who berate AiG for spending millions on the Ark Encounter seldom lament the millions Hollywood spends each year on movies that seem to glorify sex and violence.

One report describes this as an “edgy Biblical re-telling of Noah’s Ark.” It's the word “edgy” that makes me suspicious. If the film's director, Darren Aronofsky, wants this to be a smash hit, I would recommend he stick faithfully to the narrative of Genesis. There's certainly enough in the real account to make the movie thrilling. I'm worried, though, that Aronofsky will fall into the sometimes practice of Hollywood elitists who feel they need to add “depth” to the characters and story. That was the killing blow to Richard Greer's portrayal of David in the movie, King David. What? Was David not an interesting enough character without embellishing him?

I'm also curious how the movie will treat the extent of the Flood and the animals on board. Will they portray a global flood? It would be entirely possible for the movie to not commit to a global or local flood so perhaps they'll go the easy route and not say either way. It would be difficult for them, though, to hide which animals are on-board. Will they make the simple mistake of Noah bringing all “species” of animals onto the Ark? I half expect to see lions and tigers rather than a single “cat-kind.”

Finally, will the movie bring out the real message behind Noah? Will it be about a righteous God Who judges sin? Will people know that God has provided salvation to those who believe in Him? Will they see the Ark as a picture of Jesus? Somehow, I doubt it.

Most of what I know about the movie at this point is speculation. We'll have to wait and see the finished product before giving it a thumbs up or down. I'm somewhat encouraged that movie makers are looking to the Bible as the inspiration for great movies. Still, Hollywood has seldom treated Christians with the same respect they show for AIDS victims or drug users.

It's Now A Crime to Tease Someone

I was a little surprised to hear the verdict in the “webcam spying” case. Actually, I wasn't surprised; it's more like concerned. According to Philly.com, “Former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi was found guilty of invasion of privacy and bias intimidation Friday in a webcam spying case that focused national attention on the harassment of gay teenagers.” [bold added]  It's the “bias intimidation” part that really scares me.

From what I understand about the case, the 20-year-old defendant had witnessed, via his webcam, his gay roommate kissing another man. He tweeted about it and jokingly said he would invite others to view the next encounter. In spite of some early rumors surrounding the case, no videos of the act were made and certainly nothing was posted on YouTube. The gay roommate, Tyler Clementi, committed suicide, allegedly out of humiliation over the incident.

From the article, a gay-activist attorney said of the verdict, “The verdict today demonstrates that the jurors understood that bias crimes do not require physical weapons like a knife in one's hands.” Really? I don't think the jurors understood very much at all. The article cites one law professor as saying, “The jury appeared to find that Ravi's intentions were not out of hatred or bias but the jurors believed Tyler Clementi perceived them as such.”

Let's set aside the “invasion of privacy” charge for a moment. What exactly is bias intimidation? From this verdict, it doesn't need to be a threat or even need to be intended to intimidate. It simply has to be perceived as intimidating. Remember, we're not talking about the KKK burning a cross in the front yard of a black family. In a case like that, there is overt intimidation and the possibility of violence is very real. In this case, no one threatened the gay student. They merely teased him. More precisely, they didn't even tease him – some people joked about him online. There was never any threat of violence. The “victim” wasn't scared; he was humiliated.

Is this really the precedent we want to set? If you make a joke about someone – never intending to harm him – you could still go to jail? Are gay people so thin skinned that we need to arrest people who are perceived as “insensitive”?

Let's apply this same standard to another demographic. Should we arrest people who make jokes about blacks? Some liberals would say yes so that doesn't work. Let me think... what other group might we use? What about... oh, I don't know... let's say, Christians. If someone makes insensitive remarks about Christians, is it a hate crime?

Let's suppose for a moment, that some atheist blogger wrote a scathing piece about Ken Ham and said hateful things like, “Millions of people, including some of the most knowledgeable biologists in the world, think just about every day that you are an airhead, an ass, a birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a charlatan, a cheat, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a con artist, a crackpot, a crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a dumb-ass, a dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fake, a fathead, a fraud, a fruitcake, a gonif, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a jackass, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a mountebank, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a numbnuts, a numbskull, a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a racketeer, a sap, a scam artist, a screwball, a sham, a simpleton, a snake oil salesman, a thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead, and much, much worse.”

Oh, wait a minute, PZ Myers did write that about Ken Ham on his blog. So, is this “bias intimidation”? Isn't Ken Ham being ridiculed because of his religious beliefs? Myers may not be intending to intimidate Ham but, according to this new standard, there need not be any threat of violence. Mr. Ham only needs to feel humiliated. If Mr. Ham, in a fit of depression and humiliation, should jump off the Brent Spence bridge, PZ Myers would probably cheer. No liberal would think for a minute that Myers should face 10 years in jail for his blatant assault on Ham's religious beliefs.

Isn't a person's religious views protected from hate speech or is protection only reserved for a person's sexual orientation? For the record, though, I believe the whole notion of “hate speech” or “hate crimes” is misguided. We already have laws protecting people against violence. What need is there to protect them against ridicule? Sticks and stones, as they say. If I cried “hate speech” every time someone tried to shame me for my religious beliefs, half the cyber-world would be under arrest.

Once again there is a glaring, double-standard in the liberals' application of “rights.” They're not interested in equal treatment of everyone. Tease a gay, go to jail. Ridicule a Christian day after day for years, win the adoration of millions of liberals everywhere. Have I mentioned before that liberals are hypocrites?

Science Nazis

That's right. I said it. Some people are science Nazis. They are Nazis in the sense that they are militant about their scientific conclusions and feel perfectly just in forcing the “ignorant” masses into compliance through propaganda or whatever means possible. The Joseph Goebbels of the movement is Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).

Before I begin, let me say that I may be annoyed but I am not unhinged. Many times in the past, I have read comments by evolutionists who, I am sure, were foaming at the mouth as they wrote. It's typical for people with this attitude to argue by insult. That's not what I'm trying to do here. I sincerely believe that Eugenie Scott is a propagandist as are many others like her.

OK, now to the meat of my “rant.”

Nature.com recently published a piece titled, “Evolution advocate turns to climate change.” The subtitle of the article says, “Education centre known for battling creationists aims to help science teachers convey understanding of global warming.” It's interesting that they use the term, “battling creationists.” I think the subtitle conveys the general impression held by the scientific community of the NCSE's true agenda as being militantly anti-creationist. They are not just concerned about keeping “religion” out of science education in schools, they are battling creationists wherever they are found. This has long been demonstrated by Scott's years-long crusade against the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis.

AiG has always admitted that they are not interested in changing public school curriculum. Like myself, they do not want public school teachers (especially those who might be unbelieving) teaching the Bible to our kids. This is the job of parents and the Church. Also, the Creation Museum is a private institution. It was built entirely with donated dollars and does not receive – nor ever received – any type of public grant or funding. Why then does Scott, and others of her ilk, concern herself with them? The reason is simple: it's because she loathes the idea that anyone anywhere believes in creation.

In the Nature article, reporter Susan Young highlights the same attitude toward global warming. Young begins her article lamenting that, in the same way some students have rejected the theory of evolution, some students are also rejecting the idea of global warming (or man-made global warming). She says that Scott has chosen to intervene because of the “entreaties from educators and textbook authors.” The article quotes Scott as saying, “I think we can make an important contribution. If teachers understand that there is a place that they can go to for help, we can use some of the expertise that we’ve gained over the years dealing with evolution to apply to this related problem.”

Well, first off, one might ask how is evolution related to climate change? During any discussion, if a creationist happens to mention something like the Big Bang, the evolutionist is quick to point out that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution (cosmology v. biology). Here, though. Scott says two unrelated sciences (biology and meteorology) share a related problem. In her mind, the “problem” is that there are people who don't fall lock-step into established, scientific consensus.  Her's is a political agenda - not a scientific one.

According to the article, “25–30% of [surveyed] respondents reported that students, parents, administrators or other community members had argued with [educators] that climate change is not happening or that it is not the result of human activity.” What is even more alarming is that “[s]ome school boards and state legislators have threatened to require educators to ‘teach the controversy’ about climate change — a term coined in relation to evolution that amounts to presenting a scientific theory as one of various possible viewpoints.”

Oh my goodness! You mean there are actually school boards out there who want educators to tell their students that some people – maybe even some scientists – disagree with their theory?! I can see why Scott is up in arms. (I am using sarcasm in case it isn't obvious).  Honestly, I can't see a "controversy" in teaching students to be skeptical.  In the case of global warming, I believe there is more dissent among scientists about the issue than there is concerning creation.  However, Scott is a propagandist and she sees it as her job to sway the masses to the desired point of view.

Scott believes the solution to this imagined problem is “helping people to understand the reasons why scientists overwhelmingly accept climate change.” This is the crux of the issue. It's the elitism of the scientific establishment or “truth by consensus.” Scott believes that the science is settled. Since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept climate change, we know that it's true so dissent is no longer allowed. Her approach is cleverly worded but it's little more than a thinly veiled “appeal to authority.”

I wonder how Scott might have behaved a few centuries ago when Galileo was introducing ideas that upset the scientific establishment. Would she have said, “Look people, the science is settled on this – Ptolemy was right”? Even well established science can still be wrong. Most scientists will admit this. Still, certain elitists only allow debate within the scientific community. Lay people are not allowed to have an opinion other than then current consensus of the establishment.

What is most amusing about the article is this disclaimer:

The statement also says that the NCSE will not take a position on what, if anything, should be done to counteract global warming or mitigate its effects. “What to do about it ranges widely and gets outside of the strict science and into policy issues in which many, many variables are going to have to be considered,” says Scott. “We are not a policy think tank; we don’t have expertise in this area.”

Wait a minute! They don't have expertise in this area? Why exactly, then, is she taking a side on this issue? On the one hand, they claim not to know enough to recommend a solution but on the other hand, they know enough to know it's absolutely true and students don't just need to be taught about it but need to believe it. I know why they are interested. Even though their expertise is not in global warming, Scott is still commenting on her area of expertise – propaganda!

The Ark Encounter

I happened to visit Answers in Genesis' website a couple of days ago and noticed a banner saying there was going to be a big announcement today. Frankly, I had forgotten about it because a lot of times people will tease a big announcement for something that turns out to be not so big after all. Today, while my wife and I were pulling into the parking lot of a local, Chinese buffet, the noon news report on the radio announced that AiG was planning to build a “theme park.” The alleged park was reported to include a full-scale ark the size of Noah's and cost a projected $150 million! Wow!

During lunch, I had mixed feelings about the report. Was this truly going to be a “theme park”? Visions of something like the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disney World were running through my mind. One criticism often leveled against the Creation Museum is that it's more like a “theme park” and not a serious museum. To bolster the point, I've seen critics post the photo of PZ Myers sitting astride the saddled dinosaur the museum has set up for a photo op. The critics refer to the saddled dino as an “exhibit.” It's certainly not an accurate criticism. However, if AiG truly built some kind of Noah's Ark theme park, it would likely validate the critics and seriously undermine their own credibility.

After lunch, I had to go into work and didn't get home until late. When I got home, I immediately went to AiG's website to learn more about the announcement. Much to my relief, it isn't really a “theme park” in the sense the radio report had implied. It is described as a “tourist attraction” and while the attraction will be themed, it isn't rides and games. The Ark Encounter website describes it as, “a one-of-a-kind facility that presents the full-size Ark and its historical background and times.” Besides a full-sized replica of the Ark (what it might have looked like), the attraction will also include a 100-foot “Tower of Babel” (what it might have looked like) with a 500 seat theater, a petting zoo billed as “Noah's Animals”, and several other themed attractions. Like the Creation Museum, it seems the Ark Project seeks to educate visitors in the historical reality of the Bible. It's purpose is to both educate and evangelize. Unlike the Museum, however, the new attraction will be “for profit.”

The radio spot also included a sound bite from Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. This man purports to be a Christian but since the Bible says we can know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16), I have my suspicions about him. One thing that helped seal the deal for the project is that Kentucky has special tax incentives in place to lure outside, tourist interests to KY. Barry Lynn feels that since the Ark attraction is overtly religious, it should not receive any kind of tax subsidy. I guess Mr. Lynn feels it's OK to subsidize a NASCAR Sprint Cup Race (which also received the subsidy) but not a group like AiG for an attraction like the Ark Encounter. Is he serious? I'm sure he is. Liberals think they're being “fair” when they exclude Christians from enjoying the same benefits available to everyone else.

There are still a lot of hurdles to jump before ribbon is cut at the new attraction's opening. All in all, I'm excited about it. When the Creation Museum opened, I was able to attend it the first week. Hopefully, I'll have the opportunity to visit the Ark Encounter in the Spring of 2014. Good luck to AiG.

Answering the 10 Questions Every Christian Must Answer: Part 3

#2) Why are there so many starving people in the world?

#6) Why do bad things happen to good people?

These questions seem to be making duplicate points so my answer to both would be essentially the same. Therefore, I'm including both questions in a single post. If the video sees a difference between the two, the narrator has failed to explain how they are significantly different. Incidentally, we could possibly include question #1 in here as well. Why there is suffering is directly related to why there are also amputees.

By asking these questions, the video is demonstrating either a gross ignorance of Christianity or is intentionally ignoring the obvious answer that has been given so often already. Given that the video uses so many fallacious arguments (as detailed in my first post in this series), I suspect the ignorance is intentional. A baseless or oft refuted claim is called a canard – especially one used deliberately.

Perhaps I'm being a bit too rough. Even some Christians have wondered about the so called, “problem of evil.” The supposed dilemma is this: if God is good and if God created everything, then why does evil exist? The study of this “problem” is called “theodicy.” It has been my experience that most Christians who stumble over this are typically those who compromise on the creation account given in Genesis. If one believes that God used the cruel process of evolution to create, then that would mean that death, disease, and suffering are intentional and they are part of God's creative process. However, if one reads Genesis 1-3 with the understanding that the events are factual, questions like this practically answer themselves.

For anyone not inclined or not able to read the Bible, I'll briefly recap the creation account: God created the entire universe in six days. On the 6^th day, God created Adam and Eve. God looked at everything He had made and saw that is was all “very good” (Genesis 1:31). The world was a paradise and Adam and Eve could have lived forever, free of worry, if they had only obeyed God. Unfortunately, we all know what happened. Adam disobeyed God and received God's judgment. Death entered into the world at that time (Romans 5:12). God's judgment, however, was not only on Adam but also on the entire creation. The Bible says that God cursed the ground for Adam's sake (Genesis 3:17). It further says the entire creation groans and travails in pain (Romans 8:22). The Curse continues even today. Death, disease, pain, suffering, famine, natural disasters, etc., are all products of the Curse and the result of our own sin and rebellion. Additionally, men continue to disobey God and inflict man-made evil upon their fellow man. This is why bad things happen.

Immediately, the critic might suggest that it is unfair to curse all of the creation for the sin of one man. It is not unusual for the condemned to feel his sentence is too great but it is reasonable to expect the curse on Adam extended to Adam's domain. Consider this: something cannot be perfect if it contains even one small blemish so Adam's one sin literally spoiled the entire, perfect creation. In Jeremiah we read the analogy of the potter and the clay (Jeremiah 18:4). If the potter's work is marred by an imperfection, it is the right of the potter to cast it aside and remake another as he sees fit. As the Creator of the universe, God would have been perfectly just to destroy the entire creation after Adam sinned. Similarly, God would be perfectly just to destroy any one of us at the moment we sin. The fact that He doesn't is demonstrative of His mercy.

The critic might next ask, “Why doesn't God do something about it?” Well, God has done something about it – He sent His Son to die as an atonement for our sins. Furthermore, God also intends to restore the creation. We are told in Revelation 21:1 there will be a new heaven and new earth because this sin stained world will be passed away. In that place, there will be no more curse (Revelation 22:3). Revelation 21:4 gives us this wonderful promise, “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” Amen!!

I know the critics won't be satisfied with my answers and will continue to call God cruel. I would ask them then, “What should be the alternative?” Given that God is not only perfectly loving but also perfectly just, how should He handle a rebellious people? Should there be no judgment? Do they want God to make this world a paradise? This is why we don't let the guilty set their own sentences. I can just imagine a criminal asking the judge if he can spend his sentence on a beach. The critics, of course, will say that the judgment should only be on “bad people.” The problem arises though that there are none who are good. We tend to excuse our own failings by comparing our sins to other people's. The critic might excuse his own lies, greed, blasphemies, and lusts but arguing that at least he's never murdered anyone. By that reasoning, though, Jack the Ripper could excuse his own crimes by saying he wasn't as bad at Hitler. What's more, if the doubters had their way and God only punished those who fit the critics' definition of “bad,” then the dilemma still exists: in their utopia, where only the “really bad” people are punished, who would a guilty person commit his crimes upon? Even if they had their own way, they still would not be able to say that bad things no longer happen to good people! To accomplish what they want, God would literally have to restrain them; He would have to force them to obey His laws. Somehow I don't think skeptics would think that was fair either.

Finally, what sound, logical argument exists that would conclude that since bad things happen, God is imaginary? It's totally non sequitur. It would be like saying that since there are poor families in America then the President is imaginary. It's not even close to convincing. One could try to make the argument that God is cruel and not worthy of worship but to say bad things prove He is imaginary is an absurd premise. I know that logical fallacies abound in this video but this is just intellectual laziness.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

A thought about the Mosque at Ground Zero

At the risk of sounding contradictory, I think I have liberals figured out; yet on the other hand, I'll never really understand how they think. I mean, they are predictable in that they always loathe American, conservatives, and Christianity but the reason for their loathing escapes me. The mosque proposed to be built at Ground Zero is still another example of liberal hypocrisy and lunacy. I've seen no outrage from the left over a shrine being built in the shadow of the fallen Towers which is likely being funded by the same groups that toppled them! And what about the expected dedication date of 9/11/2011? Hello!! Instead of outrage we here calls for religious tolerance and constant harping on the fact that it's “legal.” Give me a break!

This is all strangely familiar to me. I lived in Cincinnati a few years back near where Answers in Genesis built their Creation Museum. In the years leading up to the building of the Museum, AiG scouted a couple of locations as potential sites for the build. This was covered fairly extensively by the local media and I followed the story pretty closely. On a couple of occasions, when a possible location was being considered, AiG would meet with the zoning committee to discuss zoning for the museum. Such meetings drew libs out of the woodwork in protest. There were complaints that the Museum would be a disruption to the community, over-burden the streets with traffic, attract protestors, and generally be a source of embarrassment to the Tri-state area. It didn't seem to bother them one bit that AiG is a religious organization which had a legal right to build such a museum. Indeed, many were outspoken about the fact that the objected to what AiG represented. At one meeting, a protestor went so far as to say that if the commission allowed this museum to be built, it would violate the separation of Church and state! Chew on that for a while! On at least one occasion, the board capitulated and refused zoning for the Museum before it was eventually built at its present site.

A lot of the arguments raised by liberals at the building of the Creation Museum are the same arguments being used by conservatives about the building of the mosque now. The mosque would certainly be a disruption to the community, a draw for protestors, a source of controversy, and most assuredly an embarrassment that we would allow a terrorist sympathizer to build a monument overlooking the hallowed grounds of the worst act of terrorism committed in America. Even like the Museum, much of the debate is around zoning. Why are the liberals suddenly so tolerant about the Muslim religion when they weren't nearly as tolerant when a Christian organization wanted to build a museum?

I ask rhetorically because we already know why: they are hypocrites who hate America and Christianity. To them, teaching children that Adam and Eve were real people is a worse crime than killing thousands of innocent Americans. They compare Christian fundamentalists to terrorists who shouldn't be allowed to build a museum but they excuse real terrorists and allow them to build a mosque to be dedicated on the 10th anniversary of September 11th!

Like I said, liberals are predictable but I'll never really understand them.

Is Young Earth Creationism a Modern Invention?

A very clever criticism being offered lately against creationist arguments is that young-earth-creationism (YEC) is a relatively modern invention. That is, never before in Church history has there been such an emphasis or hyper-literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. When I first began to encounter this argument, I must admit I was a little taken aback. It was not so much that I thought the argument had substance but rather that I was unsure how anyone could have such an opinion. I quickly realized that this argument is really nothing more than clever spin.

When we read through the writings of the early Church fathers, there is little doubt that the overwhelming majority of them accepted the creation account in Genesis as a historical fact. Only a very small handful looked at Genesis as anything but non-literal. One notable exception to the literal understanding of Genesis was Augustine who is no doubt one of the most cited example offered by modern proponents of this argument. What they fail to mention, though, is that Augustine believed in an instantaneous creation – certainly not a billions years long one.

Curiously absent from the writings of the Church fathers are long, expository apologies defending a literal Genesis. In most references to creation, even in lengthy discussions of the creation, the author already assumes the account is historical. He doesn't spend time explaining why he believes the account is literal. The critics then ask why groups like Answers in Genesis (AiG) seem to focus their entire ministry on promoting a literal Genesis when none of the Church fathers have done the same? There are certain Churches that overemphasize certain parts of the Bible (like Revelation or passages discussing demons) and this seems to become the entire focus of their ministry. Some Churches see a demon behind every corner and every sickness while other Churches see every headline as a sign of the end times. This behavior is especially prevalent among cults like the Branch Davidians. The implication, then, is that ministries like AiG or people like myself who seem to “overemphasize” a literal creation are exhibiting cult-like behavior. Like I said, this is a very clever argument.

The reality is that, prior to 100 years or so ago, there was never a need for ministries like AiG. A literal 6-day, recent creation had been the default position of the Church for nearly 2,000 years. A lengthy treaty defending a literal understanding of Genesis would have been as unnecessary as defending the position that the sky is blue! It was not until the 19^th century, after the writings of Lyell and Darwin, that serious challenges to Genesis started becoming popular. Looking back, I believe the Church handled the new ideas rather poorly. Rather than trust the word of God over the flawed opinions of flawed men, many Christian leaders of that day capitulated without a struggle. Some began to invent new interpretations of Genesis that were “compatible” with the new theories of science. These new interpretations included absurd notions like theistic evolution, the gap theory, the day-age theory, the framework hypothesis, and the simple “Genesis-is-allegory” interpretation. More liberal theologians have even adopted the alarming idea that most of the OT (particularly Genesis 1-11) is merely myth written down by bronze-age shepherds. Even some conservative, evangelical Churches have taken the position that our understanding of origins is not relevant to the message of the Church today.

The effects of early compromise on Genesis has been devastating to the Church. We live in a society today that sees fit to compartmentalize “religion” and the “real world.” To them, the Bible is just a book about God and science tells us about everything else. However, such a position is untenable. Jesus Himself said that if we do not believe His words about earthly things, how can we believe Him about Heavenly things (John 3:12)?

It was in response to the compromises of the 19^th & 20^th century Churches that Dr. Henry Morris co-authored his ground-breaking book, The Genesis Flood and ushered in what has become the modern creationist movement. Modern YEC is not an attempt to introduce a new Church doctrine. It seeks to defend centuries old Church doctrine against more modern heresies. It also continues that centuries old tradition of preaching the absolute truth of God to a secular and lost world.

How Did Judas Die?

In the weeks leading up to Easter, I intend to post a series of articles discussing various events and controversies surrounding the holiday. One issue often raised by critics of the Bible is the question, “How did Judas die?” We know that after the arrest of Jesus, Judas, in a fit of remorse, killed himself. This fact is mentioned in Matthew 27:5 and again in Acts 1:18 but therein lies a problem since these verses seem to contradict each other. Matthew says simply that he, “went and hanged himself ” while Luke records Peter saying, “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”

Perhaps one reason this criticism is so enduring is because, unlike so many other criticisms, this one is not so easily rebutted. It doesn't necessarily mean that this is a valid criticism of the Bible; the fact of the matter is that the two passages are so scare in details that it's not obvious how to reconcile them. Actually, multiple solutions exists and we're just not sure which might be the correct solution.

First, it must be remembered that different people will describe the same event differently. Consider this analogy: police are called to a crime scene and find a dead man. They ask witnesses what happened. One witness says the victim was killed in a fight with another man. A second witness says the victim fell and hit his head. Using only these details, it seems like the witnesses have contradicted each other. However, the simple solution could be that two men were fighting when one fell, struck his head, and died. If we had more details, the two passages might be that simple to reconcile. Alas we only have these two, short descriptions. There are at least 3 ways these events might be reconciled:

A SPIRITUAL FALL

I recently came across an intriguing possibility that Peter (Luke 1) was not describing the physical death of Judas but was merely describing his spiritual fall. This would be a fall in the same sense the Adam “fell” and died. Regarding the reference to “bowels,” there are multiple passages (especially in the KJV) were the “bowels” are a reference to mercy or compassion (Colossians 3:12, Philemon 1:7, 1John 3:17). So according to this theory, Judas may have died physically but he also “fell” spiritually and his bowels bursting is a reference to his act of betrayal.

I am still skeptical of this as a possible solution but it could have merit. I've already mentioned that different people might describe the same event differently so Peter may have been speaking of his spiritual fall. Consider also that Peter is introducing the need to replace Judas among the apostles. We have no reason to believe the act of replacing the apostles was continued after subsequent deaths of the apostles – those apostles who remained faithful unto death. It could be then that Peter is introducing a doctrinal need to replace him, namely that he not only died but that he fell from grace.

So though I remain skeptical about this possible solution, I include it here for the consideration of others.

A GRUESOME HANGING

I've heard various scenarios that attempt to explain how the hanging of Judas might have been especially gruesome and could fit the description in both passages. The first is a rather mundane explanation that the rope Judas used was too long and rather than hanging, he fell to the ground. This is hardly plausible. A fall from a tree might be sufficient to kill a person but it would have to be an especially high tree for the body to break open. This is the least likely explanation that I've heard.

A second possibility that I once considered is that Judas wasn't “hanged” in the ordinary sense of the word but instead impaled himself – perhaps on a spear. The word “hanged” is also used in reference to the death of Jesus (Acts 5:30, Acts 10:39) who we certainly know wasn't hanged by the neck. Besides Jesus, the thieves crucified with him are also described as being “hanged” (Luke 23:39). If a person were impaled through the belly with a spear, it might be described that his bowels were burst open and spilled out. For a while I felt this was an extremely possible explanation but I later learned that the Greek word in Matthew 27:5 (ἀπάγχομαι) quite literally means "to choke." It still may be a possible explanation but I feel it is less likely.

Yet another possibility occurred to me many years ago when I heard a radio news bite of a US state that was trying to hire an executioner. In that state (I believe it was Washington), the proscribed method of execution was still hanging even though no one had been hanged there for many years. In the sound bite it was mentioned how much is actually involved in a hanging. The rope should be the right length for the sentenced man's weight so that his neck will break and he will die quickly. If it is too short, he will die slowly by strangulation. However, if it is too long, the man could be decapitated! Please excuse the gore but if a person were decapitated and his stomach contents were regurgitated out of his esophagus, it might fit the description given by Peter.

POST MORTEM

When Peter spoke before the other apostles, it might have already been understood by all that Judas had already died. So rather than telling everyone that Judas had died (or how he died), Peter might be adding some information about an event that happened post mortem. As mentioned above, a body falling from a tree will not likely “burst open.” However, after death, the skin and tissues begin to decompose. The body also begins to bloat. Answers in Genesis gives this very graphic description:

“Gruesome as it is, Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.”

In conclusion, let me remind my readers that we cannot know which of these possible scenarios might be the correct one. There could be still other explanations I have not discussed or even considered. But just these few possible scenarios clearly demonstrate that the passages in question need not be contradictory.

Further reading: The Thirty Pieces of Silver and the Field of Blood

A Review: State of the Nation 2 with Ken Ham

Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis , gave the group's 2nd “State of the Nation” address. All I can say is – he nailed it! Well, that's not all I can say.

He subtitled his address, “Reminders Removed,” a reference to Joshua 4:4-7 where men from each of the twelve tribes piled up stones in order to leave a reminder to their children how God had provided for them. Today in America, we have forgotten the Christian traditions upon which this nation was founded. Ham brought out many quotes of President Obama where the President said, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.” In many ways, the President is right; the reminders that we were once a Christian nation are progressively being removed. Prayer, creation, the 10 Commandments, the Bible, and the mention of God have all been removed from public schools. Things like the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage are now being eroded by practices like abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage.

Ham expressed (correctly) that the increase in apostasy has followed increased compromise on the word of God. Much of this compromise involves an attempt to reconcile the Bible with man's opinion. This is a dangerous practice because whenever God's word opposes man's opinion, it is usually God's word that gets compromised

This watering down of the word has caused people to reject the Bible and their faith outright. After all, if the Bible is wrong on one point (such as the Genesis account of creation) then how can it be trusted on any point? This is a logical question and rather than trust the Bible over man's opinion, many people have chosen to reject the Bible. Ham referenced several times the new book, Already Gone where this phenomenon has been detailed.

As faith has waned, society hasn't become a neutral vacuum concerning religion. Rather, popular culture is becoming increasing hostile toward Christians. Such an attitude is in agreement with Matthew 12:30, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” Rejection of God is replaced with secular humanism which worships the creation and mocks God (Romans 1:20-25). Ham played this shocking video of Professor Lawrence Krauss from Arizona State University:

Besides the shocking comments, I was almost as equally shocked by the laughter and cheers from his students.

But Ham doesn't spend an entire hour wringing his hands over how bad everything is. He details the situation but also offers the solution: a return to the Bible.

The video is a good watch and a must see for every Christian. I recommend everyone invest an hour of their time to see it.

What is "Presuppositional Apologetics"?

Answers in Genesis has a brief and precise article that wonderfully explains presuppositional apologetics. You can read the original article by clicking here but I have reprinted it below:

When explaining their beliefs, Christians often feel they must first prove the Bible or prove the existence of God. This approach reveals that they do not yet understand the Bible’s approach, known as presuppositional apologetics.

Presuppositions are simply beliefs that everyone has that affect how they think, view the world, interpret evidence, and read the Bible. Apologetics is a reasoned defense of beliefs. So presuppositional apologetics is a reasoned defense of Christian beliefs based on recognizing our presuppositions.

For instance, my presupposition is that God exists and He has given us His Word (the Bible) that is absolute truth. So I use the Bible as the basis for how to think, interpret evidence, explain the world around me, and read the Bible. An atheist’s presupposition will most likely be that there is no God and that truth is relative. An atheist believes that man decides truth, and so he thinks, interprets evidence, and views the world and Bible accordingly.

If we start off believing the Bible is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Psalm 18:30; Proverbs 30:5), then we use it as our axiom. An axiom (often used in logic) is a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed. The Bible takes this stance, assuming God’s existence to be true and not something to be proven (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14; Revelation 1:8).

The battle is not over evidence but over philosophical starting points: presuppositions. As Christians, we should never put away our axiom—the Bible—when discussing truth with others. This would be like a soldier going into battle without any armor or weapons. Asking a Christian to abandon the Bible for the sake of discussion is like asking an atheist to prove there is no God by using only the Bible. You would be asking the atheist to give up his axiom.

The prophets and the apostles never tried to prove God’s existence. They started by assuming God’s existence, and they always reasoned from Scripture (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19). By using the Word of God, we are actually pitting the unbeliever against God and not our own fallible thinking.