Answers in Genesis Articles

Feedback: Prejudiced about “Race” and the Creation Museum

Fri, 25 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Five years ago this weekend, the Creation Museum opened in northern Kentucky (near Cincinnati). There were protests by atheists and others at the gate on that Memorial Day weekend, but opposition is to be expected in a world that is divided between those who believe in God’s authoritative Word, the Bible, and those who reject it. What is sadder is when the museum is on the receiving end of attacks from professing Christians who are prejudiced against the museum and base their opposition on wrong information.

We recently received an email from someone who took a swipe at the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis (which operates the museum). This started what turned out to be a particularly revealing exchange of emails because her criticism was based on a completely wrong understanding of one of the museum’s teaching points. We believe that sharing the email exchange AiG had with her will be instructive to our web readers. Not only will this demonstrate another sad example of compromise within Christendom, but it will also show how easy it is to feed your own prejudices by uncritically accepting second-hand information, and it will assist people in dealing with one of the hot-button topics of the day—racism.

Here is the email exchange (slightly edited) that AiG had with someone in Sacramento, California, who appears to be a theistic evolutionist.

Genesis 2:7 is one reason why I do not appreciate you portraying “Adam” and “Eve” as “white” as you apparently do in your museum, even though I myself am mostly European American. Life probably also probably originated out of what is now Africa.

– Michelle

Our first email in reply was the following:

Michelle:

Sorry, but you have been misinformed. Adam and Eve are portrayed as middle brown in skin shade in the museum. See photo attached (which I took for you this morning on my smartphone), and please read this article from a PhD geneticist on our staff:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/one-race

May I ask: where did you hear we depicted Adam as white?

Also, we have an anti-racism website, www.OneHumanRace.com, which contains articles and videos declaring that Adam and Eve were middle brown. Please check it out.

For the evidence that refutes the contention that humans evolved from ape-like creatures in Africa, go to item #3 at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/06/11/news-to-note-06112011

Please let me know you received my email. We have had server difficulties recently. Thank you.

Regards,

Mark

Here is Michelle’s second email.

Yes, I got your email, but I saw from pictures of museum and your scan cam that your “Adam” is portrayed with modern European features with a tan, as well as the other people you present from the Bible. Would it bother you that the first people probably looked like Aborigines?

Also I have known about the OneHumanRace.org site before, which also doesn’t discuss America’s support of Zionists to commit “racism” … [and the creation of] hateful and racist policies just because of what happened to “Jews” in the Third Reich. ….

– Michelle

We then replied as follows:

Michelle:

Thank you. The first people were almost certainly middle brown in skin shade – “Middle Eastern” brown, if you will. I have travelled to the Middle East three times (as recently as September—in Jordan), and the people there generally don’t look European (although some light-skinned Egyptians and Jordanians could pass for coming from southern Italy, for example).

You also wrote that “other people you present from the Bible” inside our museum have a European appearance. Many of our museum models feature biblical characters that are darker-skinned. The photo attached is of Moses in our museum (taken on my smart phone)—he is certainly not depicted in a European way.

Our museum does not tackle all forms of racism. Since we are a creationist group, we are primarily exposing evolution-influenced racism. For example, we discuss the Holocaust because of the influence that evolutionary ideas had on the leaders of the Third Reich. We are careful not to say, though, that evolution causes racism—but racists can use evolution to justify their actions.

My guess is that you have not toured our museum. May I ask, then: what is the source of the false claims you have heard about the museum? Apparently your source is highly misinformed and may have an agenda against us.

Regards,

Mark

After repeated email attempts, we could not get Michelle to retract her false charge, even with all the evidence we could muster to contradict her accusation. Nor did we find out how she came to her wrong conclusion.

AiG finds it quite ironic that while a good portion of our exhibit on the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel relates to the origin of the so-called “races” and also offers the vital message of racial reconciliation, we were criticized for not being racially conscious. Her insinuation that we held certain prejudices about people groups is also ironic, considering that she was the one who engaged in prejudging. In addition to this major anti-racism exhibit inside the museum, AiG has authored or co-authored books on this topic discussing the formation of all the different people groups (“races”) around the world, and has produced two associated videos. We do not believe our email correspondent has ever toured the Creation Museum to discover for herself what we really believe about the origin of people groups, and she has revealed her own prejudice against the museum.

This is a part of the museum’s section devoted to answering the often-asked question: where did all the different people groups come from? It also presents a positive message of racial reconciliation.

Feedback: Does the Bible Prohibit Space Travel?

Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

I am somewhat frequent patron of your website, and I have found many fascinating perspectives on science and the biblical worldview. I have noticed—and I agree with—your assessment concerning what scripture says about life on other planets (or rather the lack thereof). What would your views be, however, on human colonization of space? As a space enthusiast myself, I have long been fascinated by this concept (I recently finished Gerard K. O’Neill’s The High Frontier). As a creationist, however, I have sometimes wondered if such an endeavor would be in accord with scripture. I have sometimes heard the entire space program itself criticized as un-biblical given passages such as Psalm 115 (“The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s, but the earth hath he given to the children of men”) and the biblical dominion mandate being limited to the Earth. I believe Henry Morris himself once wrote an article on “The Bounds of the Dominion Mandate.” What are your thoughts?

– P.K., USA

Hi P.K.,

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. As we’ll see, the Psalm 115:16 passage really has nothing to do with space exploration, and nowhere else in Scripture is the concept spoken of in a negative light. We must remember that the Psalms are poetic literature and sometimes they conceptually portray people or angels in heaven worshipping God (see Psalms quoted below).

The heavens are not specifically designated in God’s Word as man’s domain. However, I should also point out that God never says the heavens are for angels either, and yet we see numerous examples in Scripture of angels being in the heavens—and none of these instances are portrayed as wrong or negative. The essence of the passage is that heaven is where the throne of God is, and He alone controls heaven and the rest of the universe. Even if the Hebrew word is extended to include the atmospheric and interstellar heavens (as it often does), this still does not mean that God is prohibiting men from flying in airplanes or rockets, but rather that He is in control of these places as well as earth.

The Bible simply does not go into much detail about whether or not mankind has been given dominion of space, but we can look at some relevant passages as we attempt to reach a conclusion. If the expanse (translated as firmament or vault in some English Bible versions) also includes the sun, moon, and stars—as Genesis 1:14–15 seem to imply—then it would follow that man would have been given dominion of outer space as well. In fact Psalm 8:6 states that mankind has been given dominion over the works of God’s hands. Why wouldn’t this include “the moon and the stars,” which are said to be “the work of [God’s] fingers” (Psalm 8:3) a few verses earlier?

Part of the confusion about Psalm 115:16 is likely due to the fact that it was written in the form of antithetic parallelism. This is a very common poetic device in Hebrew, in which the first line of the couplet explains a concept and is followed by the second line that promotes a contrasting idea. In this verse, the truth that the heavens belong to God is contrasted with the idea that He has given earth to men.

Some common English translations render Psalm 115:16 this way:

King James Version (KJV): “The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.”
New King James Version (NKJV): “The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s; But the earth He has given to the children of men.”
New International Version (NIV): “The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to man.”
New American Standard Bible (NASB): “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; But the earth He has given to the sons of men.”
Septuagint in English (LXXE): “The heaven of heavens belongs to the Lord: but he has given the earth to the sons of men.”
English Standard Version (ESV): “The heavens are the Lord’s heavens, but the earth he has given to the children of man.”

The Hebrew word translated as “heaven” and “heavens” in this passage is shamayim, and it actually occurs in the plural form back-to-back in this passage. A similar wording is found in Deuteronomy 10:14; 1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chronicles 2:6; 6:18; Nehemiah 9:6; and Psalm 68:33. These passages use the singular form (shameh) followed by the plural form (shamayim) and are translated as “the highest heaven” or “the heaven of heavens.”

The rendering of Psalm 115:16 in the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and LXXE seem to indicate that that the heaven in this passage refers to the heaven where God’s throne is, rather than the heavens of outer space. But even if this is understood to include outer space, it still does not specify that mankind is not to go there—it means that God rules over this realm. Remember that another passage says, “The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1). Also, Psalm 139:8 states, “If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there” (Psalm 139:8, NASB). In these verses the earth is described as belonging to God, yet man is obviously allowed to be here (and we know from other verses that we have been given dominion over the earth). Also, if a man ascended into heaven, God would be there.

Numerous verses reveal that angels are and will be in the heavens, so we should not view this realm as being strictly reserved for God alone.

And the heavens will praise Your wonders, O Lord; Your faithfulness also in the assembly of the saints. (Psalm 89:5)

Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens; Praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! (Psalm 148:1–2)

Thus the Lord my God will come, and all the saints with You. (Zechariah 14:5)

“Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 18:10)

“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30)

“And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (Matthew 24:31)

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.” (Matthew 24:36)

Finally, in Genesis 1:28 we read that God blessed Adam and Eve and then told them to “be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Since man was given dominion over the birds of the air, mankind would presumably have the right to “get airborne” to fully carry out this command. Notice that God did not say “you now have dominion,” or “you now have subdued.” This was a command that implied future action. I think it seems reasonable that God gave mankind the authority to develop aerial technology in order to be able to better study and have dominion over birds (as well as aqualungs and submersibles for studying and having dominion over sea life).

We can infer from these truths that God would allow and approve of humans developing space-travel as a means of studying the earth, moon, and other celestial bodies from a large-scale perspective.

Perhaps Psalm 8 would be the best text to support this point.

O Lord, our Lord,
How excellent is Your name in all the earth,
Who have set Your glory above the heavens!

Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants
You have ordained strength,
Because of Your enemies,
That You may silence the enemy and the avenger.

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?
For You have made him a little lower than the angels,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
All sheep and oxen—
even the beasts of the field,
The birds of the air,
And the fish of the sea
that pass through the paths of the seas.

O Lord, our Lord,
How excellent is Your name in all the earth!

I hope this has been helpful.

Sincerely,
Troy Lacey

Feedback: Dinosaurs Living with People—The Biblical Worldview

Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

I was just informed my my aunt that my cousin had to do a report on dinosours for school. He found your website and was so interested in your theory about dinosour he decided to write his paper based on your beleifs. After I was informed of his failing grade and a parent teacher meeting that ended with his teacher informing my family that she was stupid I had to inventigate. I looked up your website and read your theory myself. This by far was the most bizzare and retarded thing I have ever read in my life. Dinosours and humans lived together?

Dinosours lived only a few thousand years ago? Your website tells that animals and humans were vegetarians at first because that was God's wish correct? Now animals eat meat; thats evolution idiots. Whoever approved this nonsence should go [vulgarity removed] and quit analyzing things in the bible that are not there.

Greetings,

Let’s take a look at your comments, minus the vulgarity in your last sentence, since that sort of language has no place in rational discourse. But then again, you obviously weren’t attempting to engage in rational discourse or else you would have refrained from the personal attacks and logical fallacies.

I was just informed my my aunt that my cousin had to do a report on dinosours for school. He found your website and was so interested in your theory about dinosour he decided to write his paper based on your beleifs.

We’re glad he was able to find our website and that he’s interested in learning about the biblical perspective on dinosaurs.

After I was informed of his failing grade and a parent teacher meeting that ended with his teacher informing my family that she was stupid I had to inventigate.

I’m confused. Your cousin is a “he” and your aunt is a “she,” but your family cannot be a “she.” So did the teacher tell your aunt that “she was stupid” or that your cousin was stupid? As a former teacher, I would grade based on how well the paper was researched and written—and not necessarily on whether I agreed with the conclusions of the paper. Numerous typos and poor syntax are items worthy of a lower grade, but failing a student simply because the teacher has a different starting point is academic censorship and unprofessional.

I looked up your website and read your theory myself.

That’s good. I’m glad you took some time to search this out for yourself rather than simply listening to what others say about us.

This by far was the most bizzare and retarded thing I have ever read in my life. Dinosours and humans lived together? Dinosours lived only a few thousand years ago?

First, resorting to offensive language generally occurs when someone has no substance to an argument.

Second, we have numerous articles about dinosaurs, including some that discuss dinosaurs living at the same time as people. You can either find information by searching for dinosaurs on our website or checking out Get Answers: Dinosaurs. You see, since the Bible is the Word of God, and since God cannot lie, then the Bible is trustworthy. That is our starting point. We are told that land animals were created on Day Six, and this would include dinosaurs. Since Day Six is also when man was created, we certainly believe dinosaurs lived at the same time as man.

How do you explain the various petroglyphs of dinosaurs found around the world? How do you explain the fact that so many dragon legends from around the world describe creatures that match what we know about dinosaurs from their fossils? How do you explain the biblical account that seems to describe something like a brachiosaurus, called behemoth in Job 40:15–24? The easy answer to these questions is that people have lived with dinosaurs, which were often called dragons. Yet this conclusion is unthinkable for those who believe in billions of years. Instead, it is the evolutionists who have come up with bizarre answers, like this one from an A&E documentary on dragons.

After an extensive study of the various dragon legends from around the world, and even making the comparison to dinosaurs, Dr. David E. Jones (Anthropology professor at University of Central Florida) provided this strange explanation to account for human knowledge of these creatures. This example provides a great illustration of how one’s worldview affects the way he views the data. Source: The Quest for Dragons. DVD. A&E, 2007.

For all those people who saw dinosaurs and drew them or wrote about them, I think it would have been very bizarre for someone to tell them dinosaurs and humans didn’t live together.

Your website tells that animals and humans were vegetarians at first because that was God's wish correct? Now animals eat meat; thats evolution idiots.

Genesis 1:29–30 tells us that humans, “every beast of the earth,” “every bird of the air,” and “everything that creeps on the earth” were originally supposed to eat plants. It wasn’t God’s wish; it was His command as the Creator.

Some animals eat meat today, but not all of them. I’m not sure how that’s supposed to be an example of evolution—an animal that originally ate plants, let’s say a cat for example, now eats meat, but it’s still a cat. How is that evolution? Now if that cat’s descendants eventually turned into a dog, that would be an example of evolution—one kind of animal changing into another kind—but something like this has never been observed. Please note: the biblical word kind should not be equated with species.

We have often addressed the issue of the change in animal diet that occurred at some point after the Fall, so there is no need to revisit that here.

Whoever approved this nonsence should go [vulgarity removed] and quit analyzing things in the bible that are not there.

So instead of making a rational argument, you resort to ridicule. That’s quite immature, and would earn you zero points in a debate.

How could we possibly analyze something in the Bible that is “not there”? Speaking of things that aren’t in the Bible, you won’t find any mention of evolution or millions of years of earth’s history, because those things did not happen. But the Bible does tell us that God made the land animals on Day Six, and that would include dinosaurs, so we can analyze that.

God has given us His Word so that we will read it, and the Holy Spirit aids Christians in understanding the Bible. We are called to share God’s Word with others and to give an answer or defense to those who ask us the reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). Since people continue to attack Genesis, it is our duty to defend it. When people ask sincere questions, we are obligated to reply.

I encourage you to spend time reading the Bible instead of attacking it. You can learn the truth about both man and God. Like the rest of us, you have rebelled (Romans 3:23) against the very Creator who gave you life (Acts 17:25) and deserve the appropriate punishment (Romans 6:23)—eternity in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15). The good news is that God loved the world so much that He sent His Son to become a man and die on the Cross for sinners like us (John 3:16). He bore the punishment we all deserve (Isaiah 53:6) and then conquered death by rising from the dead a few days later (Acts 2:24; 1 Corinthians 15:4), just as He had prophesied (Matthew 20:18–19). Those who turn (repent) from their rebellion (sin) and place their faith in Jesus Christ will be given eternal life (Acts 3:19, 16:31). Those who refuse the Lord’s gracious offer of salvation will endure everlasting destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:9). If you have not already done so, I urge you to seriously consider your sinful condition before God and look to Christ for forgiveness.

Sincerely,
Tim Chaffey, AiG–U.S.

Feedback: The Creator of Plants (and everything else) vs. Zombies

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

You guys are crazy. I understand that your belief in a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father who wants you to symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically accept him as your master will remove an evil in your soul placed there by a rib-woman who was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magic tree is clouding your perception of scientific evidence, but all your doing is confusing Christians who can’t afford to go to college or are uninterested in REAL science. You should be ashamed of your selves and I hope this is a spoof website.

Greetings.

Since so much of your email is completely unoriginal and copied from another source, I was tempted to cut and paste someone else’s rebuttal of the same bogus claims. Not only did you copy someone else’s quote, but you copied one that is full of straw man arguments. Let’s take a point-by-point look at your email.

You guys are crazy.

Looking at the Webster’s dictionary definition of “crazy,” I’m guessing you don’t mean that we are crooked or askew. It seems that your insult is meant to convey that we are mad or insane. If you truly believed we were crazy, why would you bother to write to us? Do you think you can reason with madmen? Let’s see if you have adequately supported your claim.

If you are really interested in debating this subject, then perhaps you shouldn’t launch the discussion with an ad hominem attack. It should also be noted that your entire email is an example of the logical fallacy known as elephant hurling. You threw out a bunch of arguments that allegedly support your position by supposedly refuting ours, yet you provide no support for your claims. Let’s compare your statements to what the Bible actually teaches.

I understand that your belief in a cosmic Jewish zombie

Jesus did come in the flesh as a Jew, so you got part of this correct. As for the zombie line, you clearly have not taken the time to look at the vast differences between a zombie and the resurrected Christ. Zombies are considered to be part of the undead (not alive), often will-less and speechless bodies that have been reanimated by spirits. The resurrected Christ is not undead, but alive (Revelation 1:18). After His Resurrection, He spoke with His followers and taught them (Luke 24:25–27), reassured them (Luke 24:36–39), and commanded them (Matthew 28:18–20). He ate food with them (Luke 24:43; John 21:15) and urged them to touch Him to see that He was not a ghost but truly risen from the dead bodily (Luke 24:39). He also had a will (John 21:22–23) and performed miracles (Luke 24:31; John 21:6).

who was his own father

Clearly you do not understand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, since we do not believe Jesus was His own Father. Admittedly, the doctrine is difficult to comprehend since we are finite and God is infinite. A god that we could fully comprehend really wouldn’t be much of a god, would he? We believe there is one triune God. The Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Spirit is God. However, the Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity has been thoroughly explained many times before by others, and we have several articles dealing with the subject. (See Is the Trinity Three Different Gods? and The Trinity—A Non-negotiable Doctrine.)

who wants you to symbolically eat his flesh

What does it mean to symbolically eat His flesh? Do you even know the context in which Jesus discussed the eating of His flesh (John 6:54; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:24)? He had just miraculously fed over 5,000 people with bread and fish, reminding the people of the manna in the wilderness God had repeatedly provided for their ancestors. These people wanted Jesus to do something more incredible than what had been done for their predecessors. But Jesus explained that satisfying their spiritual hunger was far more important than meeting their physical needs. He said, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). Later in the discussion, He stated, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world” (John 6:51). Not only did Jesus predict His sacrificial death on the Cross for our sins, but He had also explained what it meant to eat His flesh. He was telling them in a symbolic way that they needed to come to Him and believe in Him.

and telepathically accept him as your master

Christians don’t have to “telepathically accept” Jesus as master; we must actually trust in Him as Lord and Savior. Words, whether vocalized or unspoken thoughts directed to God, can be empty. It takes sincere repentance from our sins and faith in God to be reconciled with Him—to be saved from our sins and eventually live eternally with Him in heaven. God’s Word describes faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1, NASB). We cannot save ourselves by living good lives because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Jesus Christ came to accomplish what we could not. We are saved by grace alone, received through faith alone in Christ alone (Romans 10:9; Acts 16:31).

will remove an evil in your soul

First, the “evil” is not removed until death, when we depart to be with Christ. The Apostle Paul expressed the daily struggle we have with our sinful desires (Romans 7:13–25), and although our evil desires are not removed, Christians have been forgiven of their sins as a result of Christ’s substitutionary death on the Cross.

Moreover, Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them (Romans 8:9). “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness” (Galatians 5:22), so we now have new passions and desires, yet Christians still struggle with evil desires. Paul states that “the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish” (Galatians 5:17), but he encourages believers to “walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16).

Also, the Bible doesn’t say that the evil is only in our “soul.” Paul makes it clear that we are to “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit” (2 Corinthians 7:1) and that the sinful nature is a part of our bodies (flesh in Romans 7:18 and body in Romans 7:24). In the Holy Spirit, God has given us the ability to overcome our sinful desires.

placed there by a rib-woman

God did create the first woman, Eve, from Adam’s rib. However, evil was not placed in us by the first woman. The Bible consistently refers to the first man’s sin as the reason for our fallen state (Romans 5:12–21; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22) and for the Curse, which brought death and suffering to our world (Genesis 3:17–19).

who was convinced by a talking snake

Perhaps this is splitting hairs, but she was actually deceived by the serpent. There was a real serpent in the garden, and we learn from other passages of Scripture that Satan used or possessed this serpent to deceive the woman.

to eat from a magic tree

Where does the Bible say that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had magical properties? It doesn’t. God gave our first parents the opportunity to obey or disobey Him by placing this tree in the garden. Adam was free to eat from any tree except for this one (Genesis 2:16–17). When He disobeyed God, it was not any magical property of the tree that brought about the Curse. Adam’s punishment was a result of his disobedience. If I told my daughter not to take the car for a spin, but she did it anyway, the resulting discipline would be for her disobedience, not because of any supposed magical properties of my car (flux capacitor notwithstanding—sarcasm intended).

is clouding your perception of scientific evidence,

This is about as close to the truth as you’ve come in your entire email. You’re correct that we all have perceptions (or more accurately, interpretations) of scientific data (i.e., evidence). The real disagreement between creationists and evolutionists on this subject resides in our starting points—our presuppositions. Biblical creationists believe an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator made this universe in all of its dazzling complexity, while evolutionists generally believe the entire universe ultimately sprang from nothingness.¹ Those who deny a creator must also believe that intelligence came from non-intelligence, life from non-life, and information from non-information. Evolution is basically the atheists’ way of attempting to explain life without God, so when I refer to evolution in this feedback, I am really referring to atheistic evolution.

Our belief in God and trust in His Word does not cloud our perception of scientific evidence. Instead, it provides the basis for properly understanding our world. God created the world and built into it certain physical laws, and then He created man with a rational mind that can understand the world. Therefore, we can explain the necessary preconditions for doing science, such as the regularity of nature, the laws of logic, and the basic reliability of our senses (sight, hearing, touch, and so on). On the other hand, the evolutionists cannot account for these preconditions, and thus fail to provide a rational basis for “doing” science or knowing anything with certainty—so you do not even have a basis for calling us crazy. The evolutionary worldview falls apart once you realize it has no foundation for rational thought.

but all your doing is confusing Christians who can’t afford to go to college or are uninterested in REAL science.

You’re implying that those who go to college and are interested in “real science” would never believe the Bible. What about the thousands of scientists and doctors who do real science and are Bible-believing Christians? See our creation scientists page for examples.

Let me guess—by “real science” you mean evolution and billions of years. It seems you do not understand the many differences between operational science and historical science? Operational science involves doing experiments that are observable, testable, and repeatable, which is where our advances in technology come from (e.g., computers, cell phones, and airplanes). However, both creation and evolution fall in the category of historical science—using the data we see today to determine what happened in the past. But no scientists were around to observe our origins, so when it comes to historical (origins) science, they must make numerous assumptions to interpret the data they see. If those assumptions are faulty, then in all likelihood they will reach the wrong conclusion. While historical science, such as forensic science, can be helpful in efforts to learn what happened in the past, the best way to know what really happened is to learn from a trustworthy eyewitness. In the Bible, we have the infallible record of the Creator. And since He cannot lie, we take His Word over the ever-changing, opinions of fallible evolutionary scientists who start with wrong assumptions. (See What Is Science? and Historical and Observational Science for more information on operational science vs. historical science.)

You should be ashamed of your selves

Why should we be ashamed for telling the people the truth? We are “not ashamed of the gospel of Christ” (Romans 1:16), nor are we ashamed of our Savior and Creator, Jesus Christ. However, consider what Jesus said about those who are ashamed of Him. “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man [Jesus] will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels” (Luke 9:26).

By telling us we should be ashamed, you are appealing to an absolute moral standard, which in your worldview cannot exist. In fact, the Bible tells us that man did not experience shame before he sinned against his Creator (Genesis 2:25). Man’s rebellion against God’s commands, as recorded in Genesis, accurately explains the basis for the concept of shame—a negative emotion caused by violating commands we know we are obligated to obey. Ultimately, the atheist has no legitimate basis for shame, since he denies the Creator and His moral law. So why would you bring up shame? You should stop stealing from our worldview in a futile effort to build your own. By the way, stealing is wrong from a biblical worldview (Exodus 20:15), but once again, evolutionists have no warrant for morality.

and I hope this is a spoof website.

I am pleased to tell you that this is not a spoof website—it is a serious website that is well-trafficked, with approximately one million hits per month.

Your mockery and use of fallacious arguments reveals several things. Although you claim to understand our beliefs, you actually display ignorance of what the Bible really teaches and what Christians believe, demonstrating that you have not carefully researched the beliefs you want to criticize. If it isn’t ignorance, then perhaps you are simply afraid of dealing with the truth. Also, you must not have strong reasons for your own beliefs if you resort to mockery and lies to persuade someone to your way of thinking.

Did you realize that the Bible tells Christians they will be mocked for their beliefs? In fact, in 2 Peter 3 we are told that mockers would scoff at us because they walk according to their own sinful desires and hold to a philosophy that sounds a lot like uniformitarianism (i.e., believing “the present is the key to the past”). Peter specifically said these scoffers would reject the biblical teachings on Creation, the Flood, and Christ’s return. Sound familiar?

Someday the Lord Jesus Christ will return. Will you continue to mock your Creator who died on the Cross in our place? Or will you humble yourself and admit to Him what you already know to be true: that God exists and is holy, that you are sinful, and that Jesus Christ is your Judge. The only way to escape His wrath is to turn from your sins and call on Him to save you.

You may have sent your email thinking that it would rile us up. Instead, it actually saddens us that someone would spend time railing against the Creator—a Being that you allegedly don’t believe exists. Why would it even concern you if you truly believed God didn’t exist? But you know the truth and are suppressing it in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18–21). We will pray that you will humble yourself, turn from your sins, and call out to the Savior to save you from the eternal punishment we all deserve (John 3:16; Romans 10:9–13).

Sincerely,
Tim Chaffey

Feedback: Mr. Hostile

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

To whom it may concern,

You’re business is an aboslute disgrace and abomination to the progression of man. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves for wanting to teach kids such fallacies you have no evidence for as ‘facts’. Though a complete picture of how the world was derived hasn’t been totally identified, the evidence is so far stacked toward evolution that I pity how heavily you must have been brainwashed and how much you have to ignore and reject to maintain your selfish beliefs. I am truely embarrassed to be on the same planet as you backward idiots! I challenge you to spend a few months to IMPARTIALLY research opposing theories and the possiblilty your ‘God’ does not exist. If you dont think your faith can withstand this examination, then I guess ignorance is bliss!

Who needs logic rationale and reason anyway. If you can believe a genocidal malevolant tyrant wants you to ignore science, then you better do it!

[Editor’s note: For the duration of this article, the term evolution refers to the atheistic (or naturalistic) view of evolution.]

Dear M.,

Thank you for contacting us. My comments are below and I really hope you consider these. Also note, they are said with sincerity and respect, though I am being direct in places.

You’re business

It is actually a ministry.

is an aboslute disgrace

First, I’m glad you believe in absolutes. Second, I’m glad you believe there are such moral things as respect and honor—the opposites of shame and disgrace. Most evolutionists would disagree about these things.¹ They say there are no such ultimate standards as absolutes, shame, or honor. They argue that everything is material and all things happen—even your own thoughts—as mere chemical reactions, so life is basically meaningless because there is nothing immaterial.

Of course, many evolutionists are being illogical when they claim there are no absolutes, as they just made an absolute statement! All this is to say that I’m glad you disagree with leading atheistic evolutionists about absolutes and morality. These attributes are very Christian of you. However, based on your email it seems that following the Bible is not a high priority for you, so as an atheistic evolutionist, why would you think there are absolutes and disgrace without the existence of the biblical God? Ultimately, there is no basis for morality without Him because He is the absolute standard for morality, which comes from His perfectly good nature.

and abomination to the progression of man.

But from an evolutionary perspective, why care about the progress of man? “Eat, pass on your genes, and die”—that really is the evolutionists’ motto. Why would they be concerned about the next generation instead of letting the offspring fend for themselves before they die? And how would evolutionists even define progress since that implies moving toward something better, but they have no basis for defining what is good, better, or best? Why care about anything? Really?

Caring about people or society is a godly attribute, as people are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27; 9:5–6).² I’m glad you do care, but you must borrow from the biblical worldview to make sense of it.

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves for wanting to teach kids such fallacies you have no evidence for as ‘facts’.

We are not ashamed since we are teaching the truth, but evolutionists should be ashamed that they teach kids lies about God, morality, truth, science, and justice—and even kill children in abortion facilities as if they were weeding the garden (recall that it is an evolutionary tenet that views children as purposeless organisms like plants or animals that can be eliminated).

But let me ask: what fallacies? Furthermore, in an evolutionary worldview where everything is material, why would truth and logic even exist? These things are not material; they are abstract. It is the biblical worldview from which we have a basis for knowledge, logic, reasoning, morality, and so on. The atheist must borrow from the biblical worldview just to try to argue against it.

Though a complete picture of how the world was derived hasn’t been totally identified,

Then why believe it is “absolute” enough to argue against other worldviews as the absolute standard?

the evidence is so far stacked toward evolution

Such as? We have the same data as the evolutionists, and God disagrees with the evolutionists who make such claims. He says all of it is stacked His way: “The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1; see also Romans 1:20). So what is the best evidence that evolution is true (even though there is no such thing as truth in the evolutionary worldview)?

that I pity

Why “pity” if people are just chemicals? Chemical don’t “pity”? Again, like morality, pity comes from the Bible. I’m glad you have pity, even though it is misguided, because it is a self refuting position (that pity and other immaterial things do not exist) and verifies that you are indeed made in the image of God.

how heavily you must have been brainwashed and how much you have to ignore and reject

I was brainwashed by public education that taught me that I was just chemical and a waste of space in a “billions of years” universe where nothing matters and when you’re dead you’re dead. But then, I actually studied the subject. And I found out who was doing the brainwashing.

I thank the Lord God for saving me from the secular humanism (which includes evolution and millions of years) that I was taught in school and university. It sounds like this false worldview was forced on you without question. I want to encourage you to question it.

to maintain your selfish beliefs.

How is being loving and caring to others selfish? How is teaching people the truth selfish? How is taking a stand to save souls of children selfish? How is loving and being obedient to the God that died to save us from sin and death selfish?

But in an evolutionary worldview and its free-for-all, survival-of-the-fittest competition, why shouldn’t we be selfish?

I am truely embarrassed

Again, consistent evolutionists have no basis for truth or shame, so why maintain this belief? If you want to be consistent, you should either give up on truth and logic or give up on an evolutionary worldview.

But I don’t understand why atheists don’t seem to be embarrassed about fellow evolutionists like Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot who killed millions of kids and adults, or the maniac evolutionist Anders Behring Breivik, who recently killed all those young kids in Norway? Instead, many atheists take the time to email us to say we, who preach righteousness, should be the ones embarrassed.

to be on the same planet as you backward idiots!

How are we backwards and ignorant? Such a claim is merely a question begging epithet fallacy.

I challenge you to spend a few months to IMPARTIALLY research opposing theories

Like this “impartial” email? The fact is no one is impartial. There is no such thing as impartial research. This email and others we have received like it is evidence that those who criticize the biblical position clearly haven’t “lifted a finger” to sincerely research out what the Bible teaches about creation, truth, knowledge, science, and so on.

Furthermore, I have searched hosts of other beliefs including the six differing views of evolution (Epicurean, Lamarckian, Traditional Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, and Hopeful Monster).³ Out of curiosity, since you’ve professed a belief in evolution, which of these do you believe right now, and why are the others wrong?

As a matter of note, what Lamarck and Darwin did in trying to find a mechanism for evolution was really just a rehash of trying to make some Greek idea work. The Epicurean Greeks proposed the myth of evolution; it was one popular form of Greek mythology—even Paul refuted it thousands of years ago in Acts 17.

But with aspects added by Lamarck and Darwin, they simply made variations in this mythology. Rightly, it is still Greek mythology, but their new aspects can also be dubbed French mythology (Lamarck was from France) or English mythology (Darwin was from England). Sadly, WWII in Europe was instigated by Adolf Hitler, who bought into the English mythology of evolution.⁴

and the possiblilty your ‘God’ does not exist. If you dont think your faith can withstand this examination, then I guess ignorance is bliss!

When it comes to the existence of God, I have researched the subject as well— the classical arguments (which presume rational thought as the absolute standard) and the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God or TAG (which explains how the existence of the biblical God and mankind being made in His image provides the basis for rational thought).⁵ How have you disproved the transcendental argument for the existence of the biblical God?⁶

Who needs logic rationale and reason anyway.

Evolutionists don’t consistently believe in such immaterial things.

If you can believe a genocidal malevolant tyrant

Well, this is clearly not the biblical God as anyone could tell who has actually read the Bible. This is straw man fallacy that God-haters like Dr. Richard Dawkins have set up. Keep in mind that the last few genocidal, malevolent tyrants have been evolutionists like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

wants you to ignore science, then you better do it!

I love science and have a Master’s degree in it. It is sad to see when evolutionists can’t tell the difference between evolution and science. It is a common equivocation fallacy on their part.

Mr. M., I would like to encourage you though. You have expressed a belief in evolution (with its atheism, since evolution comes out of an atheistic worldview), yet you are living your life borrowing from the biblical worldview that morality, logic, and truth exist; science is possible; and the like.

I even presuppose that you wear clothes, which comes directly from a literal Genesis 3. Let’s face it, frogs don’t wake up in the morning and put their clothes on. The point is, you are living a life that is a contradiction. You follow the Bible in some areas (perhaps unknowingly), yet you argue against its truthfulness.

But it is time to stop and repent. It is time to change your life and start on the path of truth and righteousness. M., I would love to see you get saved through Jesus Christ and be reconciled with God. It seems you have a passion for standing up to things you feel are wrong, which is a biblical attribute. That is something I would hope you continue to do. But you need to understand what is right and wrong and have a basis for it like the Bible. I want to encourage you to begin the journey. A good book to get you a good overview of who God is and what the Bible is all about with selected passages from the Bible is simply entitled Begin.

At the very least, it would help you understand who God is and what the Bible teaches on a number of subjects.

With kindness in Christ,
Bodie Hodge