“Darwin, Dinosaurs and the Devil” (Part 1)

That’s the title of an article that has shown up on some websites in my home country of Australia. Actually, this article originated from an atheist site in the U.S., and versions of it have shown up all over the internet on secularists’ sites and some news sites (sometimes with different headlines). Here is a link to one of them, which I will comment on below.

At first I wasn’t even going to respond to yet another attack that is designed to malign AiG (and me personally), but because it has shown up on some websites in Australia, I thought I would make a few comments on the article and expose the several inaccuracies found in it.

First, I have to admit that the headline “Darwin, Dinosaurs and the Devil” is very apt for the article. You see, God’s Word describes the Devil and those who do his work this way:

“You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.” (John 8:44)

The anti-AiG piece certainly contains many untruths and distortions. It’s basically the same garbage the atheists keep flinging at us. Actually, this article reminds me of another verse:

And there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

Apparently, secularists can’t come up with any new arguments to use against AiG, so they just keep regurgitating many of the same old things. We’ve answered them all before. Here are a few reminders of how we respond to some of their outlandishly false accusations; here are some excerpts, followed by my comments and critiques.

Excerpt from the article:

Few have profited more from Darwin calumny and science denial than Ken Ham, an Australian-born, young-Earth creationist behind some of the most ambitious monuments to creationism in the United States. Ham rose to fame after successfully raising $US27 million to build the Creation Museum in Kentucky, which tells the story of God's creation of the Earth through … Pro-evolution scientists (ie, all actual scientists), however, have obfuscated these undeniable truths with sinful lies and slander.

Our response:

The secularists continually make the charge that we at AiG (and me personally) “profit” from the Creation Museum. They almost always try to bring in the money angle. They just don’t understand (or just don’t want to understand) the burden we have as Christians to see secularists like them be saved from eternal separation from God. The real benefit we want is to see hearts and minds won for the Lord Jesus Christ.

And we haven’t spent $27 million on the Creation Museum—we’ve now spent over $35 million with all the additions to the museum in the past five years! But the Creation Museum and all that goes with it would probably cost five times as much to replace today, for so much sacrifice in labor (and many other ways) has built this place in order to be a witness for the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, I don’t see these same atheists complaining about the millions of dollars in profit that places like Disneyland take in just from entertainment!

In addition, these secularists never give up on their false accusation of our ministry’s supposed “science denial.” That’s because the secularists play around with definitions; they use the word “science” for both historical science (beliefs about the past) and operational science (based on observation that builds our technology). Actually, it is the secularists who teach a false understanding of the word science (and how it works) in their attempt to brainwash students and the public in their anti-Christian religion of evolution and millions of years. For more on the differences between historical and operational science, read Troy Lacey’s article Deceitful or Distinguishable Terms—Historical and Observational Science.

Also, the author accuses us of “sinful lies”? Now, think about it: who decides what is “sinful” and what is a “lie”? If there is no absolute authority, then how can the author even accuse someone of being “sinful” or telling a “lie”? In fact, his article is full of lies (which we will point out in a moment), but because secularists have no basis for absolute truth, they can ultimately tell whatever lie they want, for in their belief system, there is no such thing as a lie in an absolute sense! But they turn around and call Christians “sinful.” I find that amazing! (To learn more about the atheist worldview, read Dr. Jason Lisle’s article, Atheism: An Irrational Worldview.)

Excerpt:

He and his fellow creationists have proposed a creationist theme park called Ark Encounter, centered around a "full-size" replica of Noah's Ark. At Ham's request, the governor of Kentucky has proposed a $US43 million tax break for the park, as well as an $US11 million road improvement project for the highway leading to it. (Apparently creationists read the Bible literally but not the First Amendment.)

Response:

This is the same tired lie the secularists keep pounding away at in deliberately misleading the public. The “tax break” is instead a tax-incentive rebate program for any company that can bring tourism to the state of Kentucky. It has been used by secular organizations and the rebate was approved for the Ark Encounter LLC because the project fulfilled all the requirements.

Let us be clear once again: no state monies will be used to construct the Ark complex. Taxpayers will not see their money used to build or operate the Ark Encounter; no money will be taken out of the state’s budget to fund the Ark, contrary to the writer’s false assertion.

Now, if the Ark meets attendance goals and sees tourism dollars flow into the state, the Ark Encounter will receive rebates on sales taxes paid by the Ark visitors. At the end of an operating year, any money that might go back to the attraction will have come from those people who chose to visit; no unwilling taxpayer will subsidize the Ark (and thus there is also no establishment of religion). Nobody is being forced to visit and hear about the Bible’s history, including its account of the Ark.

So, it is actually a rebate on the sales tax generated within the facility (once the facility is open and operating). The state offers this rebate because of all the income such a project would bring to the region and also the tax revenue the Ark Encounter bring to the state government. The finished Ark will add tourism dollars to the state coffers, and it’s a net gain for Kentucky if the Ark is built here (and not in another state).

Excerpt:

The best way to understand the radical strangeness of Ham's views is to closely examine how he attempts to undercut belief in sound science - that is, to read his books. Ham's books fall into two categories: colourful picture books designed to indoctrinate children, and pseudoscientific tracts aimed at persuading adults.

Response:

Actually, a few corrections here. I have written a number of children’s books, ranging from preschool through middle school level. I have also written books for high school age and adults. I have also authored or coauthored many books, including the bestseller The Lie and major works like One Race, One Blood; How Could a Loving God?; Why Won’t They Listen?; Already Gone; and others, as well as being the general editor of the bestselling The New Answers Book 1, 2, and 3.

The word “tracts” implies small leaflets (i.e., something not substantial). These are actually booklets that are thousands of words long. This slap is just another attempt to malign us. And of course the use of the term “pseudoscientific” is again an effort to indoctrinate people in the false idea we don’t teach science. The secularists don’t want people to know we employ many staff with earned doctorates (e.g., in astronomy, geology, molecular genetics, the history of science, biology, and two MDs) and that we have a peer-reviewed science journal (Answers Research Journal). They also ignore the fact I was trained and licensed as a science teacher by secular universities in Australia for the public schools “down under.” (I’ve written about some of accusations thrown at us on my blog in a post titled Origins and “Child Abuse”.)

Excerpt (the author is referring to a children’s book I authored on dinosaurs):

But its ultimate message is that belief in young-Earth creationism is necessary to avoid an eternity of damnation.

Response:

This is the worst lie in the article. We hear this false accusation over and over again. AiG has never tied believing in a young-earth to salvation—never! Salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, not the age of the earth. I’ve written on this so many times, but the secularists don’t want you to know the truth. They make up things for their purposes of attacking. They have to know it is a lie, as any quick search on our website would reveal many articles and blog posts that deal with this subject. And they can’t find anything I’ve written that even implies that a person must believe in a young earth to be saved. One of my blog articles dispels this claim; I urge you to read it.

Excerpt:

Ham's masterpiece for the adult reader, The Lie, was recently reprinted in a revised and expanded 25th-anniversary edition.

Response:

According to what this author wrote earlier in the article, I supposedly have produced only “tracts” for adults! At least the author is acknowledging one of my books now!

Excerpt (regarding my book The Lie):

It contains the same outlandish pseudoscience and strict moralising as Dinosaurs of Eden - with none of the whimsy. The Lie distils Ham's theological convictions: Christianity is under attack, society is rotting away, and acceptance of evolution is the root of its disintegration.

Response:

This is another typical distortion we have answered time and time again. Evolution is not the “root” of society’s “disintegration.” Sin is the cause—man’s inherent sin nature and man’s rebellion against God. But the more people are taught that evolution shows the Bible is supposedly not true, the more people will then reject God’s Word as the basis for their thinking, and then more people will become consistent with this way of thinking and determine morality for themselves. (For further explanation, read my blog article, Sin Is to Blame—Not Evolution!)

This trend is really summed up by an application of this verse of Scripture: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

In other words, when people don’t believe there is an absolute authority, then morality is subjective—it’s whatever people want to decide for themselves, if they can get away with it in the culture.

Part two of our critique of this web article will be posted here tomorrow.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken