Textbook Tuesday: “The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years” by Ken Ham – Part 2

When I read through a book like Ken Ham’s “The Lie,” I can’t help but realize and appreciate more and more that we are in a battle for truth. Religion has become a truth war. As Ken Ham points out, this lie is something that has permeated every fabric of our culture. Some of us have fallen prey to it without even realizing it, or even the gravity of it. Thankfully, there are people like Ken Ham, and organizations like Answer in Genesis who put out literature like this that is rational and reliable for Christians to use to combat the sinful thought of our days. I’m glad you could join me for part 2 of this blog post, sorry it wasn’t out on time yesterday.

I visited a dear friend of mine in the hospital which took precedence over this post. With that in mind, please enjoy my analysis of chapter 2 of Ken Ham’s “The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years.”

Chapter 2

Ham opens this chapter by doing something that I believe is most effective in establishing a good argument. He begins by defining the terms he’s going to use throughout the rest of the book. Page 43 states, “I wish the reader to understand that the term evolutionist is used to mean those who believe that molecules-to-man evolution (biological evolution) – in the sense of time, chance, and struggle for survival (naturalism) – is responsible.

From here he goes on to further explain what exactly those terms mean in that definition. Cosmological evolution deals the supposed big bang theory origin of the universe. Geological evolution deals with the years taken to lay down the sedimentary rock used for fossil-bearing. For future purposes though, when Ham uses the word evolution from here on, it will mean biological evolution unless stated otherwise (biological evolution does imply geological and cosmological evolution) according to Ham.

Ham shares with the reader on page 44 what exactly kind of war is being fought here. As a Christian, one of the chief arguments I hear from my friends on the atheist side of the debate is that I as a Christian will refuse to adhere to sound logic. I am accused of believing in an irrational idea, that was the mental product of knuckle scraping bronze age goat-herders. In other words, even if I were presented with irrefutable proof that the Scriptures of God were wrong, I am accused of my beliefs being physically unable to change because I am too stupid.

Ham then shares quotes by The Southern Skeptic (the official journal of the Australian Skeptics), and Richard Dawkins, respected biologist and author. In one issue of The Southern Skeptic, Ham references a quote of theirs that read the following, “Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by an unobservable God.” Dawkins likewise said that even if a “great big giant 900-foot-high Jesus…strode in and said, ‘I exist. Here I am,’ ” his mind likely still would not be changed.”

This is the mindset that we are dealing with here. It is this very mindset that refuses to budge even so slightly as to wonder whether God does exist or not. The problem that these people realize is that once they start to wonder whether or not God exists, they no longer become atheists because they have opened themselves to the possibility that the supernatural is out there. This is what Ham is trying to get at. These atheists are working from their starting point, or premise, that states that there is no way, no how, that the Bible could possibly be the Word of God. Don’t bore them with the facts, because even if they exist, they aren’t real. Either our Scripture is a joke if false written by foolish shepherds, or it’s true and written by some witty Hebrew slaves. Either way, the argument fails to be rational or willing to see flaws.

As stated in Chapter 1, Ham says that the problem in this debate is that we are viewing it as science v. religion, when it actuality it is religion v. religion. The religion of Christianity v. the religion of evolution.

Page 45: To understand the crux of the issue, we need to first understand the differences between historical science, and observational science. Historical science has to do with knowledge of the past and origins. Observational science has to do with knowledge gained by direct observation, like technical progression. Observational science is used in the fields of empiricism and repeatable tests. Both Christians and non-Christians use observational science in the same way. The differences between Christian and non-Christians is historical science.

Ham says that evolutionists are guilty of mixing observational science with historical science and calling it science wrongfully. Ham then goes on to give some examples of how evolutionists do this:

1. When a scientist claims that a rock is metamorphic, and igneous, he is using observational science. When that same scientist then says that rocks are millions old, he/she’s shifted to historical science since we’re talking origins now.

2. Observing speciation resulting in natural selection is observational science. If this is claimed as evidence of evolution though, now we’re talking about historical science, since we’re talking about a “mechanism for evolution.”

3. Element decay being observed would fall under the umbrella of observational science, but extrapolating backwards with assumption after assumption to estimate radioactive decay to determine the age of the rock shifts into historical science.

As you can see, there is a distinct difference between these two fields of science. Ham fairly points out that there are highly respected scientists who believe in evolution. Scientists who use observational science to build rocket ships and send people to the moon, and rovers on Mars, their observational science is to be applauded.

The problem with atheistic evolution (historical science) is that it is based on a religious philosophy, a philosophy that refuses to believe that the Bible’s account could ever be true no matter what. It’s not valid under any circumstance. Biblical creationists and evolutionists share the same observational science, but differ drastically when it comes to historical science.

Creation scientists are convinced that observational science overwhelmingly confirms the historical science of creation, the Noahic Flood, and the Tower of Babel in Scripture, and that it denies evolution by lack of confirmation. The Bible confirms the historical accounts of these events, and observational science confirms their historicity.

On Page 47, Ham quotes famous atheist, Theodosius Dobzhansky who says, “Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.” As Christians we must realize what a direct denial of blatant Scriptural truth that this is. On a logical level, Theodosius states that evolution is a light essentially illuminating all thought in the world. The problem is that the beliefs and theories of evolution are changing yearly so often, that one has to conclude that this light changes hues at least every year because evolutionists simply do not have all the information in front of them so as to make proper informed opinions about historical science. Their claims have to constantly be adjusted because they weren’t there to see the big bang, the molecules to man evolution, or several millions of years. Some will say, but Christians weren’t there to see creation happen either. That’s true. We weren’t there. But we are reading the words of the eyewitness account that was there. God was there creating all that we know. He was there, and shared His account with us. All the evidence that evolutionists have exists only in the present.

In John 8:12 Jesus says, “I am the Light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” In Isaiah 2:5 we are commanded to “Walk in the light of the Lord.”

The 11th edition of Webster’s Dictionary defines religion as “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” This defines Christianity, and it certainly defines biological, cosmological, and geological evolution. Evolution must be considered a religion.

Page 48 states that scientists do not dig up fossils with age tags on them. Nor do dig sites accurately explain how several different species came to live together at once and be buried together. Here’s the rub, we can’t use observational science to say that these animals lived together because we weren’t there. We can’t determine how they lived because we weren’t there. Museums can’t reconstruct an environment in which organisms probably lived in if the researchers were never there to find out.

Page 49 states one of the powerful quotes of the book: “The only way anyone could always be sure of arriving at the right conclusion about anything, including origins, depends upon his knowing everything there is to know.”

Page 50 states, “Evolutionists do not have an origin witness, but Christians do.” This is the main point: If we want to have a proper and correct understanding of historical science, then we have to come at the problem with the proper and correct viewpoint. That viewpoint is Scripture because it is the eyewitness account of the only one who was there when it all began. Because the beginning viewpoint of creationists is Scripture, which cannot be changed, then our view of the beginning origins cannot be changed. We won’t change our beliefs because our viewpoint can’t change. Evolutionists will change because they don’t have all the information.

Page 51 is where Ham delivers another poignant quote. “I find over and over again that biblical creationists will admit the belief aspect of their origins account, but secular evolutionists usually refuse to do this! It is all a part of how they attempt t brainwash the public by falsely labeling creation as religion and evolution as science.”

Christians need to wake up to this horrifying fact–evolution in all its forms (cosmological, biological, and geological) is a religion that is trying to explain the universe without God. We’ve been pulled into the lie, and getting out of this mire is incredibly difficult.

Next week I’ll look at chapter 3 of this eye-opening book.

Powerful words. If you read the article, please share it, and leave a comment in the box below!

Interested in reading more of my banter? Click the “follow blog” tab at the top of the page and I’ll keep churning out material for you.

Follow me on Twitter by clicking the little box at the top left corner of my page.

If you can spare 35-odd minutes, check out this video from Ray Comfort and Living Waters Ministries. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

interested in Ken Ham’s book? Purchase it here! http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/lie-25th-anniversary-edition/

Curious about Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum? Need answers to bolster your faith? Check out these websites! http://www.answersingenesis.org and http://creationmuseum.org

– Just


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s