The UK Creation Mega Conference, now only a few months away (October 26–28), is a unique opportunity to hear some of the world's leading biblical creationists and apologists speak on the gospel, and topics of biblical authority, apologetics, biology, astronomy, geology, design, and how science confirms the truth of biblical history.

We are also delighted to partner once again with Tirzah Jones from Day One Youth Ministries to coordinate and lead our program for children aged 7–11. Due to demand, we have now made arrangements to have a different room for Mega Kids, which can hold up to 200 children! We can also now announce that John Mackay and Dr. Danny Faulkner will be giving special talks exclusively for Mega Kids on the topics of dinosaurs and astronomy. So don't let your children miss out! Book now for just £5 per child. Please note, other children and young people (18 and under) who are ineligible for Mega Kids (those age 5–11) are free to come but must register for their free conference ticket and be accompanied by an adult.

Given the secularisation and the decline of the church in the UK and Europe, this is a time for Christians to come together, get equipped, and learn how to defend the truth of the Christian faith.

Remember, the early bird discount (saving up to 20% off regular prices) ends on June 30.Book now so you don't miss out!

I recently returned from a tour of Northern Ireland where I had the privilege of speaking at six different churches to hundreds of people in five days. It is always a blessing to minister in Northern Ireland because there is still a hunger for the word of God within many churches.

Sadly, just as the secularisation of Western Europe has caused a rapid decline in church attendance, so Northern Ireland, often known for its large Christian population, is now seeing a similar decline. It was noteworthy that I was asked to give my talk “Answering Atheism” at four different churches since this is increasingly becoming an issue.

Speaking at Calvary Free Presbyterian Church in Magherafelt.

Speaking at Ballynahinch Baptist Church.

At one meeting, an atheist in the congregation objected (during the talk) to the point I made that atheists do not have a worldview to account for such things as morality. After my talk, the person came up to me and we continued speaking about issues such as morality, our ability to reason, and why we can only account for these things in a Christian worldview. At the end of our conversation I gave him several of our pocket guides to help him further think through these issues. Another atheist who was also at the same meeting went home with six books from the bookstall! Please pray that these men will come to faith in Christ.

As a ministry, Answers in Genesis not only seeks to strengthen Christians’ faith in God’s Word and give answers to the skeptical questions of the age, but also to preach the gospel so that we see people come to know Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

Please do continue to pray for the work of Answers in Genesis in the UK.

The world has witnessed many devastating revolutions, but the sexual revolution may be the most damaging of all. In 2014 the UK witnessed a historic change within their nation when the government legalised gay “marriage.” It should be no surprise that serious challenges flowed from this decision.

Most alarming is the increasing move for people to identify as transgender, whereby men seek to become women and women seek to become men. There is even a push to indoctrinate primary school children in the UK to accept transgender behavior as normal through the book Can I Tell You About Gender Diversity? According to reports, the soon-to-be published book begins

My name is Kit and I’m 12 years old. I live in a house with my mum and dad, and our dog, Pickle. When I was born, the doctors told my mum and dad that they had a baby girl, and so for the first few years of my life that’s how my parents raised me. This is called being assigned female at birth. I wasn’t ever very happy that way.12

The book discusses Kit’s transition to wearing boys clothing, using male pronouns, changing her name, using hormone blockers to stop puberty, and undergoing gender-reassignment surgery.

Even the British medical association recently said that pregnant woman should not be called “expectant mothers” as it may offend transgender people. They are proposing that we call them “pregnant people.” These are just a few examples of how far our culture has drifted from a biblical worldview.

Christians need to think about these issues and respond to them, but how we respond will depend on our view of human origins and our worldview. We also need to understand the competing worldview which governs our culture—i.e. the secular worldview.

Secular Worldview

The secular worldview is based upon human autonomy, the belief that man determines what is right and wrong. The secular narrative goes something like this: we used to believe in male and female as the only gender categories, but we now know better.

The worldview behind secularism is evolutionary naturalism, the belief that nature is all there is and man is just a cosmic accident. In this worldview, reality is what we make it, because there is no God (or even purpose) that created it, maintains it, or declares any absolutes; therefore we can construct the world around us through our thought and language. In the secular worldview, gender is not objective but a social construction that people are free to define as they wish. In other words, “You are what you feel.”

Gender identity reflects a person’s supposedly true identity that allows them to be able to express their identity without fear of discrimination. In the secular worldview people define themselves, make their own laws, and deny that there is a God over us who defines us and tells who we are and how we should live.

Christians need to be aware of how the secular worldview is shaping the discussion over gender, and we need to make sure that we have our framework and foundations right before we can engage with others.

Biblical Worldview

The biblical worldview must start with a correct understanding of human origins, grounded in Genesis 1–3 and acknowledging the order and design of creation and also the disorder and dysfunction that comes from the Fall.

In Genesis 1:27 we read, “So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” God created mankind as both male and female, the only two genders that God blessed and designed for procreation (Genesis 1:28). God knew it was not good for the man to be alone, which is why he formed the woman and instituted marriage (Genesis 2:18–25). Male and female are designed for one another and are also the only two genders as is recognised by Jesus (Matthew 19:4). However, we now experience the consequences of Adam and Eve’s wanting to be something they were not meant to be—gods! (Genesis 3:5). Nothing good can ever come from wanting to live outside of God’s law.

While we affirm the value of every person made in God’s image, we need to recognise that all people are sinful and make choices in rebellion against him and his Word (Romans 3:23). The Fall inclined our minds toward idolatry, futile thoughts, darkened hearts, foolishness, and sexual confusion (Romans 1:18–32). The sexual revolution is a manifestation of God’s judgement, a consequence of mankind’s rebellion against God.

Once mankind starts to believe that gender is something we create based upon how they feel or how they perceive it to be, where does it stop? What about the people who don’t feel human?

Once mankind departs from the fact that God made us male and female, society will turn upside down.

We need to address this issue by speaking the truth in love. In a world where “what I feel” has become synonymous with “who I am,” we should not be asking a person how they feel about themselves but asking them what they know about God and his Word. We need to stop focusing on feelings and start focusing on truth, which will lead to correct emotions. Because the truth of the matter is that we did not determine our parents, DNA, height, or sex. Once mankind departs from the fact that God made us male and female, society will turn upside down. Gender is not a social construct that defines us and can be arbitrarily changed based on our feelings; it is a God-ordained created order that has been present from the beginning but has been marred by sin.

Increasingly, transgenderism is going to be an issue that Christians will have to deal with. The transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only hope for a world confused about its identity (1 Corinthians 6:9–11).

In 1977, two Australian schoolteachers, John MacKay and Ken Ham, began a creation ministry that started in their home and has gone on to greatly impact the world. John continues with his creation apologetics ministry, Creation Research, speaking across Australia and other parts of the world. I believe you would be fascinated to hear John speak at the upcoming Mega Conference in October. Here is more information about him.

The Aussie Creation Guy John Mackay runs creationresearch.net Down Under and is well-known for his debates against the world’s leading evolutionists, as well as for his fossil field trip finds which point to the glory of God as both Creator and Judge. As one of the key speakers at the 2017 UK conference, John’s topics include a fun yet serious exposé of Brian Cox and others in his talk “Cox and Co”—referring to the chief critics of creation and Creator. Plus get an exciting look at the latest fabulous experiments at the Creation Museum Down Under, Jurassic Ark—experiments on rapid processes dealing with fossil and cave formation, Noah’s Flood, and all key pointers to a young earth. John and his young UK Creation Research colleague, Joseph Hubbard, will share the special kid’s program with Dinos4KIDS—a program that is fun, factual, and faith building, and suits kids from 7–700 years old! They won’t want to miss hearing about John’s dinosaur finds that are solid evidence of God’s judgement in the Flood. Learn more about John and catch up with the answers he gives to questions from around the world at askjohnmackay.com.

This is a great opportunity to hear one of the world’s leading biblical-creationist apologists speak on how science confirms the truth of biblical history. Remember, the early bird discount for the conference finishes on June 30. Book now so you don’t miss out!

Last week, Professor Stuart Burgess, Professor Andy McIntosh, Brian Edwards, and I spent a few days at the Creation Museum in United States for a special two-day conference, The Best of British: Bible and Science. Ken and Steve Ham also spoke at the conference. The sessions at the conference included “Adam: The First and the Last,” “Archaeological Evidence for the Bible,” “The Designer World,” “Science, Mathematics, and Beauty,” “Myth-Interpreting the Bible,” and more.

People came to the conference from all over the United States, and one man, a missionary, came all the way from Ghana! It was great to minister to folks in the United States, and we are very thankful for the support of our sister ministry AiG-US.

Along with Professor Stuart Burgess, I also got to visit the Ark Encounter, which can only be described as amazing.

Watch for the conference talks to be released as a DVD box set later in the year.

To defend the theory of evolution, theistic evolutionists often place God’s revelation through nature in the same category as his special revelation. For example, in the recent book Adam and the Genome, Dennis Venema tells us that God is the author of “two books.”

If indeed nature and Scripture have the same author, as Christians affirm, then there cannot, ultimately, be any disagreement between what we “read” in one book and what we read in the other.13

This saying is frequently recited by those who believe in theistic evolution. However, we must remember that general revelation is referred to as “general” revelation because it has a general content and is revealed to a general audience.

However it is not a matter of disagreeing with truths in nature but of keeping in mind that a scientist interprets the evidence found in nature according to a framework: naturalism, the predominant worldview today. We must keep in mind that sin has affected how we view general revelation. The New Testament uses various words to describe the ruin of humanity’s intellect: futile (Romans 1:21), debased (Romans (1:28), deceived (Colossians 2:4), and darkened (Ephesians 4:18). As theologian Louis Berkhof states, “Since the entrance of sin into the world, man can gather true knowledge about God from His general revelation only if he studies it in the light of Scripture.”14 It is therefore necessary to interpret general revelation in light of special revelation.

Our interpretations of the discoveries made in nature must be consistent with the special revelation found in Scripture.

This does not mean that we can learn nothing from studying nature. Rather, our interpretations of the discoveries made in nature must be consistent with the special revelation found in Scripture. Therefore, when theistic evolutionists tell us that there never was a historical Adam, because of the “genetic evidence,” we must remind them that the clear testimony of Scripture is that God created Adam supernaturally from the dust of the ground (see Genesis 2:7; Acts 17:26; 1 Corinthians 15: 45).

Rejecting evolution is rejecting not science but an ideology. The debate over creation and evolution is not a battle between science and Scripture—it is between two different worldviews, naturalism and biblical theism, and the interpretation of science in light of them.

Hardly a day goes by without ‘LGBT’ issues being news headlines. Recently, the National Union of Teachers (NUT) suggested that two-year-old children should be taught about LGBT issues. NUT urged ministers to make proposed sex and relationship education “inclusive” so that LGBT students “are told explicitly in the law that their lives are important too.” An article in the Telegraph quotes Annette Pryce, a member of NUT and teacher, saying that

The “right wing, religious lobby” had prevented ministers from proposing a more “inclusive” agenda for sex education classes to include teaching about LGBT+ issues.

“This new legislation has moved us forward but it is not inclusive,” she said. “Those generations of young LGBT+ people who have been failed by the system are still not told explicitly in the law that their lives are important too”. She added that the NUT must “ensure that SRE [Sex & Relationship Education] is inclusive to LGBT young people now and forever”.15

Is it any wonder that with such politicisation and brainwashing of young children that they are becoming more and more confused about their gender? Ciarán Kelly, from The Christian Institute, rightly said the proposal to teach toddlers about LGBT issues is “shocking and immoral.” He states

“Toddlers are far too young to understand issues of sexuality and confronting them with such teaching will confuse and upset them.

“The NUT’s motion is yet another example of adults pursuing a political agenda at the expense of vulnerable children – it’s shocking and immoral.”16

This is just another example of how far our culture has drifted from a biblical worldview. Once mankind departs from the fact that God made us male and female (Genesis 1:27), society turns upside down. Gender is not a social construct that defines us and can be arbitrarily changed based upon our feelings. It is a God-ordained created order that has been present from the beginning but has been marred by sin. The transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only hope for a world consumed with its identity (1 Corinthians 6:9–11).

It is becoming increasingly popular for theologians to accept the idea that Jesus, because of his human nature, erred in what he taught and believed about the Old Testament. Recently, well-known apologist William Lane Craig made some interesting comments on this issue in response to a non-Christian’s question about Jesus’ belief in the historicity of the book Genesis. He began by stating:

When people ask me what unanswered questions I still have, I tell them, “I don’t know what to do with these Old Testament stories about Noah and the ark, the Tower of Babel, and so on.17

This is a strange statement considering Craig’s many years as an apologist. Has he really never taken the time to carefully study through the book of Genesis given that it is foundational to all biblical doctrine and that it often faces attack from secular society? But seeing that Craig is an old earth creationist and has already accommodated for secular thinking, it is no wonder that he struggles with what to do with the rest of Genesis.

Did Jesus Hold False Beliefs?

However, most concerning was his response to Jesus’ view of Genesis. Craig responded:

Your claim is that since Jesus evidently believed in the historicity of these stories, then if we allow that these narratives are not historical, we allow that Christ has erred. But what are the Christological implications of that?

Now that’s a really good question which theologians need to explore! Did Jesus hold false beliefs in his human consciousness? Did he think the sun goes around the Earth? Did he think the Earth was at the center of the universe? Did he think there were any stars beyond those we can see at night? I’m not going to try to answer those questions, but I think they’re worth asking. Did God stoop so low in condescending to become a man that he took on such cognitive limitations that Jesus shared false beliefs typically held by other ordinary first century Jews? Since I have good reason to believe in his deity, as explained above, I would sooner admit that Jesus could hold false beliefs (that ultimately don’t matter) rather than deny his divinity. Rather than impose on him our a priori conceptions of what divinity implies, we need to be open to learning from the Gospels what the incarnation entailed.

It should be no surprise that Craig is open to these questions (which theologians have answered before) since he has already adopted a limited view of inerrancy.18 Nevertheless, in understanding these issues, it is important to recognize that in the incarnation, not only did Jesus retain His divine nature, He also took on a human nature (see Philippians 2:5–8). The incarnation should be viewed as an act of addition to and not as an act of subtraction from Jesus’ nature. Craig’s objection to the validity of Jesus’ belief in the historicity of the creation account is too quick to downplay the divine status of Jesus in relation to His knowledge of creation. This overlooks whether the divinity of Christ meant anything in terms of an epistemological relevance to His humanity, and raises the question of how the divine nature relates to the human nature in the one person. We are told on several occasions, for example, that Jesus knew what people were thinking (Matthew 9:4, 12:25), a clear reference to His divine attributes. Jesus also spoke of the things he witnessed and experienced in heaven prior to His incarnation (Luke 10:18; John 17:5). In His incarnation Jesus did not cease to be God, or cease in any way to have the authority and knowledge of God. Rather, His divine nature dwelt in a human body (see John 1:1–3, 14).

The fatal flaw in the idea that Jesus’ teaching contained error is that if Jesus in His humanity claimed to know more or less than He actually did then such a claim would have profound ethical and theological implications concerning Jesus’ claims of being the truth (John 14:6), speaking the truth (John 8:45), and bearing witness to the truth (John 18:37). The critical point in all of this is that for Jesus to save us from our sins He had to be sinless, which includes never telling a falsehood. Scripture is clear that Jesus was sinless in the life He lived, keeping God’s law perfectly (Luke 4:13; John 8:29; 15:10; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). If Jesus in his teaching had pretended to have more knowledge than He actually had, then this would have been sinful. The Bible tells us that we who teach “shall receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). Jesus made statements such as, “The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works” (John 14:10) and “I am . . . the truth” (John 14:6). Now if Jesus claimed to teach these things and then taught erroneous information (for example, regarding creation), His claims would be falsified; in other words, He would be sinning, disqualifying Him from being our Savior. Jesus would be teaching the falsehood that He knows something that He actually does not know. Once Jesus makes the astonishing claim to be speaking the truth, He had better not be teaching mistakes. In His human nature, because Jesus was sinless and the “fullness of the Godhead” dwelt in Him (Colossians 2:9), everything Jesus taught was true. Jesus taught that the Old Testament Scripture was truth (John 17:17) and, therefore, so was His teaching on creation.

Jesus and Genesis

In the article Craig states that Jesus’ use of Mark 10:6–9 and Matthew 19:4–5 are only theological. Yet this is clearly not the case. Jesus used Genesis in a straightforward, historical manner to settle a dispute over the question of divorce, since it is grounded in the creation of the first marriage. The passage is also striking in understanding Jesus’s use of Scripture as He attributes the words spoken as coming from the Creator (Matthew 19:4). Craig also commented on Jesus’ use of the Flood (which he believes was local):

So your only example of any force is Luke 17:26–7 [sic], where Jesus says, “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them.” But this reference, like Jesus’ reference to Jonah, is compatible with citing a story to make one’s point. I might say to someone “Just as Robinson Crusoe had his man Friday to assist him, so I have my wife Jan to help me,” without thinking to commit myself to the historicity of Robinson Crusoe!

Does Craig really believe that Genesis is fiction (as Robinson Crusoe is)? This overlooks how Jesus understood and treated Genesis. In Luke 17:26–27 Jesus does not just refer to the individuals as historical but cites parts of the narrative (such as eating, drinking, marrying, and entering the Ark) as real historical events. The Flood is not just a story with a point as Jesus uses it as analogy with the judgement at the end of age, which will also be a worldwide historical event (not local; c.f. Matthew 24:37–39). Likewise, Craig’s comparison of Jesus’ use of the Jonah “story” to make his point also undermines Jesus’ understanding of Jonah (Matthew 12:39–41). Jesus did not see Jonah as a story or legend; the meaning of the passage would lose its force, if it were. How could Jesus’s death and Resurrection serve as a sign if the events of Jonah did not take place? Furthermore, Jesus says that the men of Nineveh will stand at the last judgement because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, but, if the account of Jonah is a story or symbolic, how can the men of Nineveh stand at the last judgement?

Conclusion

One of the reasons that people believe Jesus erred in His teaching is that they want to syncretize secular thinking with the Bible. Many old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists inconsistently reject the supernatural creation of the world and a worldwide Flood, yet nevertheless they accept the reality of the virgin birth, and the miracles and Resurrection of Christ, which are equally at odds with the truth claims of the secular scientific majority. When it comes to Jesus’ view on creation, if we claim Him to be Lord, then what He believed should be extremely important to us. How can we have a different view from the view of our Creator and Savior?

We are very excited to announce the addition of Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson to the UK Mega Conference in October. Dr. Jeanson has a PhD in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University. While at Harvard, he was actively involved in adult stem cell research and published several peer-reviewed papers in secular journals in his field. His current research involves using DNA comparisons to understand the true origin of species, and he has published groundbreaking results on this question. Dr. Jeanson is also a speaker at the Creation Museum and a contributor to the exhibit content for the Ark Encounter located in Northern Kentucky. Dr. Jeanson has also been involved in some cutting-edge research and will be presenting this at the conference in two talks: Replacing Darwin: Why the Evolution Debate Has Persisted for 150 Years and Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species. Here is what he had to say:

On the surface, the Christian view of Genesis might seem hopelessly outdated and antiquated. The skeptic might ask, “Why are we still debating a question that Darwin settled over 150 years ago? On how many other scientific questions of the 19th century do intelligent people still withhold judgment? Why is the church dragging its feet on technology and scientific progress?” To the evolutionist, the church needs reformation—on the scientific side—toward a “modern,” enlightened view. Is this true?

In my talks on “Replacing Darwin,” I explore these skeptical charges and test them against the clear light of modern biology. The results of this test are surprising. Did you know that Darwin took a massive scientific risk when he wrote his book? Do you know whether Darwin’s evidences would still survive in the modern scientific environment? Did you know that the young-earth view of the origin of species has matured and that it has exceeded the evolutionary model in its scientific strength? Three revolutionary developments in the last century and a half have turned the origins debate upside-down. I hope you’ll join us at the UK Mega Conference to find out how the scientific community—not the Bible—needs a scientific reformation.

At the conference, we will also be releasing Dr. Jeanson’s new book, Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species. This is a great opportunity to come and hear one of the world’s leading biblical creationists speak on how biology confirms the truth of biblical history. Remember, the early bird discount for the conference finishes on June 30. Book now so you don’t miss out!

A recent survey commissioned by the BBC suggests that “a quarter of people who describe themselves as Christians in Great Britain do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus.”19 For secular media organisations like the BBC, these statistics are apparently meant to be meaningful, but if a quarter of Christians in Great Britain do not believe in the Resurrection, then guess what? They were not Christians to begin with, as Scripture makes clear:

For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! (1 Corinthians 15:16–17).

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

Belief in the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is central to the Christian confession of faith. To deny it is to deny the faith. But in a culture that is basically “Greek” and evolutionary in its thinking it should not surprise us that many people reject the Resurrection of Jesus. The Resurrection has always been something that “Greek” thinking people have been philosophically opposed to and see as foolishness (see Acts 17:32; 1 Corinthians 1:23).

Interestingly, the article quotes Reverend Lorraine Cavanagh from the Modern Church, which promotes liberal Christian theology, saying:

I think [people answering the survey] are being asked to believe in the way they might have been asked to believe when they were at Sunday school.

You're talking about adults here. And an adult faith requires that it be constantly questioned, constantly re-interpreted, which incidentally is very much what Modern Church is actually about.

Science, but also intellectual and philosophical thought has progressed. It has a trickle-down effect on just about everybody's lives.

So to ask an adult to believe in the resurrection the way they did when they were at Sunday school simply won't do and that's true of much of the key elements of the Christian faith.

Dr Cavanagh’s promotion of modern or liberal Christianity is not Christianity at all; it is altogether another religion. It is the result of the secularization of Christianity. But, notice, for Dr. Cavanagh it is science (which no doubt in her mind includes evolution) that ultimately rules out belief in the Resurrection. Because in the secular worldview there is no room for the miraculous. This is the lasting effect of the church in Great Britain succumbing to the philosophy of the age.

Ultimately, those who deny the Resurrection do so not because they have looked at the evidence, such as the eyewitness testimonies of those who saw the risen Lord, and found it wanting, but because of the worldview that they bring to the evidence. As Jesus pointed out, evidence is not the problem: “But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

If you want to answer critical challenges to the Resurrection of Jesus, then I recommend Tim Chaffey’s In Defense of Easter and He Is Risen.

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. (John 11:25)

I was recently at the Ashmolean Museum of Art and History in Oxford, which had a copy of the Sumerian King List (on a clay prism) that spoke of a flood in the region of Mesopotamia. Part of the museum’s commentary about the King List states,

This is the first side of the Sumerian King List, written in around 1800 BC. It mentions a legendary flood in Mesopotamia. Multiple or single flood events in prehistory may have inspired this story, in turn inspiring the Biblical Flood story in the book of Genesis.

Of course it is popular for many people to think that the Genesis Flood account is just another myth from the ancient world. Many scholars today accept that the biblical account is borrowed from other ancient Near Eastern (ANE) accounts (as above). They accept this, believing that these other accounts pre-date Genesis , which brings the Bible’s authority into question.

However, has borrowing taken place?

The argument that similarities indicate borrowing is based on the common fallacy that if B resembles A, therefore B has borrowed from A. The dependency fallacy occurs when scholars believe that the Genesis account was borrowed from or was dependent upon the ANE accounts. This fallacy has dominated comparative mythology and religion studies for many years. The fact that two documents have similarities does not mean that the younger is dependent on the older. There are other explanations; for example, they could have come from a common text or a common universal memory.

How then should we understand the common elements between the accounts? Well, if a flood truly occurred in antiquity, one should not be surprised to find some reference to it in and throughout ANE literature. The similarities may reveal that the different accounts are explanations of the same event. Since the events of Creation, the Flood and the dispersion at Babel occurred in history, we should not be surprised to find some reference to these in and throughout the ANE. It is reasonable to assume that the Flood account in Genesis 6–9 is the original version that the pagan writers vulgarised for their own purposes. Because of the fallen nature of humanity, it is understandable why the ANE texts are corrupted and distorted (Romans 1:18–32). This does not mean that the ANE myths are untrue but rather that they make false statements; whereas the Scriptures give a true historical account of the event through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). The similarities then are different accounts and explanations of the same event.

The many differences between ANE accounts and the Flood narrative make them stand apart in significant ways.

However, it is also important to point out that while there are many similarities and parallels between the accounts there are also major differences. The significant differences between Genesis and the ANE accounts of the Flood should lead us to conclude that Genesis is not dependent on them. Many scholars put a lot of emphasis on the similarities between the accounts; however, in doing this, they often minimize the differences. The many differences between ANE accounts and the Flood narrative make them stand apart in significant ways. Some of these are:

1. In the Mesopotamian accounts, overpopulation or humanity’s noise interrupts the sleep of the gods and causes the flood. In Genesis, it is a wicked, corrupt, and violent humanity that causes God to send the Flood upon the earth (Genesis 6:5–12).
2. In the Gilgamesh Epic the gods were terrified at the flood and cowered like dogs. In Genesis, it is God who rends the earth in judgement (Genesis 6:7, 13).
3. In the Mesopotamian texts, the gods’ decisions were to be kept secret from man. In Genesis, God speaks directly to Noah seven times (Genesis 6:13; 7:1; 8:15; 9:1, 8, 12, 17).
4. In the Mesopotamian accounts, the builders of the vessel (the boatman, relatives, and friends) are passengers with the hero and his family. In Genesis, it is only Noah and his family that enter the Ark (Genesis 7:1, 13, 8:18; 1 Peter 3:20).
5. Possibly the biggest difference between the accounts is that the ANE texts do not mention a covenant, whereas in Genesis 9:8–17 the term covenant appears seven times. There God makes an unconditional, everlasting covenant with all humanity, to never again to destroy the earth.

These differences show that the unique biblical account is in no way dependent on the other ANE accounts.

These ANE accounts of the Flood from pagan, idolatrous nations are distorted versions of the truth. Genesis is not a modified version of pagan myths. There is no biblical evidence that God ever uses myths as a basis for teaching truth. On the contrary, Scripture clearly distinguishes truth from myth (2 Timothy 4:4; 1 Timothy 1:4; Titus 1:14; 2 Peter 1:16).

Today, not only is secular culture becoming increasingly hostile to the Christian faith, but many within the church are also seeking to silence biblical truth. Recently, Rev. John Peters, superintendent minister of Watchorn Methodist Church Alfreton, where Dr. Terry Mortenson, Professor Andy McIntosh, and I have previously spoken, was silenced when he spoke out against the church’s compromise with evolution. Below is a summary of John’s speech to the Methodist Ministerial Synod held in Nottingham on Monday March 6, 2017.

Rev. John Peters

The background to my speech is that I am retiring from the ministry in the summer and Ministers so doing are invited to give a farewell speech at the Ministerial Synod of their District. This is a summary of my speech:

Laid on my heart was a burden for the serious situation the Church is in today in the UK. I pointed out: the closure of many Churches, and loss of members but even more serious the loss of young people from the church at an ever-earlier age and the advance of atheism amongst young people. The root cause being a lack of confidence in the reliability of the Scriptures because of compromise in the Church with the theory of evolution. I stated the foundational nature of the first eleven chapters of Genesis and pointed out how once these are lost then the major doctrines of the Faith are also lost.

Professor Andy McIntosh and I will be speaking at of Watchorn Methodist Church on June 3, 2017.

The tragic thing is that it is not theologians or Ministers that are opposing this pagan religion of our age, rather it is scientists like Professors Andy McIntosh, Steve Taylor and Stuart Burgess. Professor Andy McIntosh even gave me permission to quote from his talk on the feathers of birds showing obvious design: “It deeply burdens me that Christians still insist on promoting this lie which is not just bad theology but awful science.”

I had more to say, for example, quoting Richard Lewontin and Dr. William Provine, but a Minister stood up and objected to what he called a “diatribe,” and I was prevented from continuing on the grounds I had gone over my allocated time. It is fair to say that they did not like what I had to say!20

This is just another example of what happens when the church abandons the wisdom of God’s Word for the wisdom of the age (see 1 Corinthians 1:20–25). The church today needs to raise up more leaders like John, who are willing to stand up and proclaim the truth of God’s Word. Sadly, too many leaders in the church have already compromised with evolutionary ideas or are afraid to speak out because of the attacks that may come from outside the church—or even from within. Please pray for John and other church leaders who are willing to boldly speak the truth in love.

Last week I had a great opportunity to teach a number of students for three days as part of the Oxford Symposium run by Crown College. The students were part of the G.A.P. (Gospel Apprenticeship Programme) at Crown Hall, hosted by the Crown Christian Heritage Trust. The G.A.P. programme is a one-year course that trains young people in apologetics, creation science, and evangelism.

Me (far right) teaching creation apologetics to the students.

Our three days of teaching included sessions on “Answering Atheism,” “Jesus, Scripture, and Creation,” and “Defending the Bible in a Scientific Age.” Each of these sessions is designed to deal with the skeptical questions of the age and to defend the truth of Scripture. After our sessions each day, the students went out into one of the busiest streets in the city of Oxford and share the gospel with people. It was great to see so many young people desiring to put into practice what they had learned. The students also handed out invitations for an evening talk by Professor Stuart Burgess on “Creation by Design.”

One of the students street preaching.

I am thankful to Crown College and Oxford Baptist Chapel (our host church) for taking a firm stand on God’s Word’s from the beginning in Genesis and for being willing to train young people in the truth of God’s Word so that they proclaim the gospel to an increasingly hostile culture.

Professor Stuart Burgess speaking on “God’s Designer Creation.”

The church today needs to raise up more young people who know how to answer the skeptical questions of the age and be able to share and defend their faith with great boldness.

Paul Garner is a full-time researcher and lecturer for Biblical Creation Trust. He has an MSc in geoscience from University College London, where he specialized in palaeobiology. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London and a member of several other scientific societies. Paul has published in the Answers Research Journal and has written an excellent book, The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation.

This is what Paul had to say about his talk, “Geological Evidence for a Young Earth,” for the upcoming 2017 UK Mega Conference:

One of the most significant challenges faced by young-earth creationists is radiometric dating. First developed in the early twentieth century, radiometric dating uses naturally occurring radioactive isotopes to date rock and mineral samples. Typically, radiometric dating methods yield ages of millions or billions of years for “ancient” rock units.

Paul Garner

In recent years, creationists have made encouraging progress in developing alternative understandings of the radiometric data. For instance, research by the RATE21 group uncovered multiple lines of evidence challenging the assumptions of radiometric dating, including the assumption that radioactive decay rates have always been constant.

However, the “problem” of radiometric dating can be tackled another way—by asking whether radiometric dates make sense when compared with observational evidence from actual rock sequences.

My talk will present exciting evidence from the rock record that raises serious questions about the validity of radiometric dates. We will explore the enormous mismatch between the rates at which sediments are known (from direct measurements) to build up in the real world and indirect inferences based on radiometric dates. We will look at visually dramatic examples of “time gaps” in the rock record where evidence of the prolonged erosion predicted by radiometric dating is clearly missing. And we will show that the “ancient” rock layers do not display the extensive disruption by animal burrows that we would expect if they had really been deposited over long time spans.

All these features of the rock record—and others besides—challenge the validity of radiometric dates and point to geological time scales consistent with the Bible’s account of earth history. Why not register for the 2017 Mega Conference so that you can examine for yourself the observable geological evidence against the millions-of-years time scale?

Last week the British Humanist Association (BHA) handed out free books to upper primary and lower secondary pupils titled What Is Humanism? How Do You Live Without a God? And Other Big Questions for Kids. The authors, Michael Rosen and Annemarie Young, said the following about the book’s purpose:

Millions of people in this country and all over the world work out their philosophy of life, and how to live, without referring to religion. Schools quite rightly spend a good deal of time and effort exploring the ideas and philosophies of the world’s great religions, but the ideas of humanism, secularism, and atheism are largely ignored. The mismatch between what is believed and what is taught is surely wrong. Our book aims at opening up a discussion about what humanism is, and how people live their lives as humanists. Throughout the book, readers are encouraged to ask questions, in order to help them think for themselves and thus to counter prejudice.

Of course the members of the BHA are free to have their views taught in schools (after all, we live in a free country), even though school children are already being indoctrinated with humanistic thinking in their science lessons through the teaching of Darwinian evolution. However, the humanists’ appeal that their view is “non-religious” is simply a ploy to get children to think there is a neutral position when it comes to the existence of God. Yet one of the definitions of religion given in the Oxford English Dictionary is “a pursuit of interest followed with great devotion.” Under this definition of religion, humanism is certainly religious. Many humanists spend much of their time railing against the Creator they don’t believe exists and upholding their cause with great devotion and faith. Furthermore, humanists themselves have a worldview based upon certain beliefs, such as the belief that the universe, including life, came about by natural processes. This is a belief based upon faith—blind faith!

The humanists of the BHA say that they want children to know that humanists can live “happy, ethical, and fulfilling lives without religion.” But do they also let them know the consistency of their position? Humanism is founded upon Darwinian evolution which sees humanity as the end product of blind chance and, therefore, has no basis to account for such things as ethics. The reason humanists can live happy, ethical, and fulfilling lives is because they are made in the image of God and, therefore, have inherent value and worth (which is not the case if you are just the product of chance). It is also the reason they can make ethical appeals. The fact that the Law of God is written on their hearts is why they have a sense of right and wrong (Romans 2:15). In their article about the book, the BHA website goes on to say,

Humanists are non-religious people whose values include looking to reason and science to gain an understanding of the world around them and relying on empathy to make moral choices.

Although the BHA says it looks to reason and science to gain an understanding of the world around them, their belief system cannot even account for these things. Reason and science are only possible because the triune God exists. Humanists tend to think that science is the answer to all of life’s questions; however, there are many concepts that science cannot account for, even if they are rational to accept them:

1. Logical truth: Logical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic, so to try to prove it by science would be arguing in a circle.
2. Metaphysical truth: It is rational to believe the external world is real, but it cannot be proven scientifically. It is necessary to believe the world is real before going out to investigate it.
3. Ethical beliefs: Statements of value like “good” or “evil” cannot be scientifically proven. Ethics tell us what people ought to do; however, science (scientists) at best can tell us what people really do. For example, when someone is shot dead, science can tell us the impact the bullet made, but it cannot tell us whether the act was good or evil.
4. Esthetical beliefs: Beauty, like good or evil, cannot be proven scientifically since it is subjective judgement, dependent on personal preferences. Whereas one person may see beauty in a sun set, another may not.

The reality of the matter is that reason and science are the outworking of a particular worldview: the Christian worldview. On the other hand, the humanistic worldview ultimately ends up in irrationality because they have sinfully taken the truth about God’s world and convinced themselves that it is not true (Romans 1:18–23).

Recently at the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education, a new resource, God and the Big Bang (published by RE Today), was launched, designed to help school children (ages 11–18) in the UK to explore the relationship between science and faith. Those involved stated:

“The disciplines of science and religion have often been kept separate from each other on the curriculum,” said the God and the Big Bang project co-ordinator Steph Bryant.

“Science teachers have not necessarily felt sufficiently informed to discuss complicated issues concerning different faiths. RE teachers have felt the same about science. This resource brings them together in a creative, dynamic way.”

“God and the Big Bang is first and foremost an excellent RE resource,” said Kate Christopher, national RE adviser at RE Today. “Considering aspects of scientific thinking as well as philosophy and ethics enlarges the scope of conversations possible in RE.25

God and the Big Bang: Exploring Science and Christian Belief by Kate Christopher

When statistics show that compromising the Scriptures with evolution and the teaching of millions of years actually leads young people away from the church, it is sad to see Christians publishing and promoting a resource that ultimately tells young people that they do not have to believe Scripture. It is important to point out that the big bang is a secular interpretation of the origin (13.8 billion years ago) and subsequent evolution of the universe. Its very purpose is to explain the universe without a need for a creator. The big bang is based upon philosophical naturalism (the belief that nature is all there is and that everything, including origins, can be explained by time, chance, and the laws of nature) used to interpret observational data. In fact, observational science reveals numerous problems for the big bang, such the horizon problem, spiral galaxies, missing population III stars, and so on.

Contradictions to Scripture

Most importantly, the big bang contradicts the biblical account of creation in several ways. First, accepting the big bang model is to ignore what the Creator has revealed concerning how He created the universe. The Bible clearly teaches that God created everything in heaven and earth supernaturally by His word within six days (Psalm 33:6–9; Exodus 20:11, 31:17). Second, in the big bang theory, many stars existed for billions of years before the earth, but the Bible teaches that the stars were made (rather than “appeared,” as the dry land did in Genesis 1:9) three days after the earth. Finally, the Bible also teaches that the earth was completely covered with water (Genesis 1:2–9; 2 Peter 3:5); whereas the evolutionary model teaches that the earth started out as molten rock and has never been completely covered with water.

Christians need to be aware that this resource could very well be used in their child’s Religious Education lesson at school. I would encourage you to get equipped and learn how to deal with the arguments against the biblical account of creation, such as the big bang. Two great resources that will help you and your children with this issue are the DVD Heavens Declare: Challenges to the Big Bang or The New Astronomy Book.

At the UK Mega Conference, October 26–28, 2017, Answers in Genesis will be partnering with a number of ministries, one of which is Biblical Creation Trust (BCT).

One of the speakers representing BCT will be Dr. Steve Lloyd. Dr Lloyd (MA, PhD) works part-time as a researcher and lecturer for BCT and is also pastor of Hope Church, Gravesend. He studied materials science at the University of Cambridge and became a Royal Society University Research Fellow. Steve also has a diploma in theology and religious studies from the University of Cambridge. He contributed to the book Debating Darwin, published by Paternoster in 2009.

At the mega conference Dr Lloyd will be talking on the topic of Adam, Identity and the Gospel. Here’s what he has to say about the conference:

Identity is at the heart of so many contentious and disturbing contemporary issues—from immigration, to gender, to body image, to dementia. Christians all agree that our identity as human beings is tied to being made in the “image of God,” but there are differences in understanding what this means.

Dr. Stephen Lloyd

In my talk I will show that the “image of God” is rooted in how we have been made and in our physical descent from the first man, Adam. In contrast, those who believe Adam was “one human among many” have to adopt a different understanding of “image of God” with some very unfortunate consequences that are rarely explored. I will explain that once “image of God” is disconnected from our unique physical origins as a separate creation we have little defence against those who argue today that our human identity, including our sexual identity, is something fluid that we create for ourselves, defined by our own desires. In short, our view of human origins crucially affects how credibly we can speak as Christians into the real-life concerns of our society.

But that is not all. I will also explore how the belief that Adam was “one human among many” also undermines the gospel itself. It requires a radical revision of how human sinfulness is understood so that being in the “image of God” becomes a curse, not a blessing! In contrast, the good news of the gospel is that in Christ, the image of God, my identity is restored from the distorted, sinful identity I share with my ancestor, the historical Adam of Genesis.

I encourage you to join us at the 2017 Mega Conference, October 26–28, to be stretched with biblical teaching that equips you to meet the challenges we face today.

“The British are coming; the British are coming!” Yes, once again the British are coming to the United States, but this time for a different reason.

In May (5–6) I will be visiting the United States along with Answers in Genesis associate speakers Professors Stuart Burgess and Andy McIntosh, and Brian Edwards for the Best of British Bible and Science conference at the Creation Museum. The conference will also feature two of our adopted British brothers from the commonwealth of Australia, Ken and Steve Ham.

At the conference we will be covering a number of relevant issues regarding the Bible and science today. Due to the increasing number of evangelical scholars who are denying the supernatural creation of Adam, I will be addressing the importance of the supernatural creation of the first man, Adam, and his relationship to the last Adam, Christ. I will also be speaking on Jesus’ view of creation and Scripture and why it is important for us as Christians to believe as our Lord did. Although many critics of the Bible argue that archaeology disproves the Bible’s history, Brian Edwards will show us that actually the archaeological evidence supports biblical history.

From his expertise in design, Professor Burgess will tell how our world has been uniquely designed and, more importantly, point us to the one who designed it. Professor McIntosh will speak on how his belief in the Creator has led him to mimic the designs in living things. A fantastic example of this would be how the bombardier beetle inspired him to design fuel injectors. He will also describe how science, mathematics, and beauty can only be accounted for in light of God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture.

There is a super early bird discount for the conference that ends on March 1, 2017, so sign up and receive a 25% discount. Your ticket to the conference also includes free admission to the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter. Please consider joining us for this unique conference, and learn how to stand your ground against the lie of evolution and millions of years and proclaim the truth for the glory of Christ.

Steve Ham (MDiv), senior director of international outreach for Answers in Genesis, joined AiG full time in 2009. He is a regular speaker and author on topics such as biblical authority, theology, creation apologetics, and the gospel. He has recently contributed to the books Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man’s Origin and World Religions and Cults Vol. 3.

This is what Steve had to say about his talk at the 2017 UK Mega Conference:

I am really looking forward to coming to the UK Mega Conference in October 2017. The speakers and subjects . . . will encourage us all to interact with issues of biblical authority that are plaguing Protestant believers 500 years after the original Reformation.

Steve Ham

Martin Luther, in his mission to uphold the authority of Scripture, believed the Genesis text to be an accurate historical account of the material creation. Luther lived 300 years before the major excavations of the ancient archeological tells of Nineveh and Nippur and even ancient Egypt. He had no way of knowing how the ancient civilizations of Assyria and Babylon mythologized the historical events of Creation, the Flood and the Tower of Babel. He never thought to use their ancient Creation and Flood myths to assess how the Israelites in the wilderness may have culturally understood the history given through Moses. His assumption was that the clarity of the text of Genesis provided an accurate history as that which was inspired by God given through Moses who was brought along by the Holy Spirit.

Five hundred years after the Reformation, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to biblical authority in the Protestant church is the interpretation of the first chapters of Scripture. Luther, while witnessing a revolution of scholarship in his own time, would never have anticipated the Age of the Enlightenment and its effect on biblical interpretation. New approaches to read biblical narrative through the eyes of external ancient texts combined with commitments to modern secular ideas about origins have drastically impacted the way many scholars are now interpreting biblical history.

If I were Martin Luther, perhaps I might ask how it is that, after 1,800 years of church history, it took the excavation of ancient tells and the Age of Enlightenment to enable the church to understand Genesis. In other words, are we really going to listen to scholars who tell us that God’s Word has not been clear enough for biblical interpretation until the last two hundred years of finding and deciphering ancient texts? It is very likely that Martin Luther and the remainder of the Reformers would strongly object, and so should we.

In my talk at the UK Mega Conference, I will deal with the interpretation principles including the use of ancient texts and archeology and their place in helping to enhance our understanding of Biblical backgrounds without adversely affecting God’s intended meaning in giving humanity a credible historical record.

As Christmas approaches, many people’s attention will be drawn to the image of Jesus in His infancy. Yet it is easy for many in today’s secular society, and even in the church, to pay lip service to the birth of Jesus when in reality they do not want to recognize who He truly is: our Saviour and Creator (Matthew 1:21; Colossians 1:16).

In Matthew’s Gospel, after the birth of Jesus (2:1), we are presented with three responses to the one who had been born King of the Jews.

Wise Men

The first people Matthew introduces us to after Christ’s birth are the “wise men from the East” (Matthew 2:1). The wise men, or Magi, had come to worship the child (verse 11) Jesus, after following “His star in the East” (verse 2). These wise men were probably pagan astrologers,26 perhaps from Babylon or Persia. The Bible forbids astrology (Deuteronomy 4:19); however, for this unique event in human history, the God who created the heavens chose to reveal Himself in the very place He knew these pagans would be looking. Nevertheless, the supernatural guidance of the star could only take the wise men so far. They needed to ask those who had been given God’s special revelation, in the Scriptures, for the place of Jesus’ birth (Matthew 2:2).

Interestingly, it was neither the religious leaders nor the king who came to worship Jesus, but pagans.

King Herod

Herod the Great ruled Israel and Judah under the authority of Rome from around 37–4 BC and considered himself king of the Jews. However, in learning of the birth of another king, Herod sought to deceive the wise men (2:8), seeing Jesus as a potential threat to his throne. In Herod’s mind there was no room for two kings, which is why he sought to kill Jesus (verse 16). In doing this Herod acts like another ruler and oppressor of God’s people (see Exodus 1:16–22).

Just like Herod, some people today see Jesus as a threat to their political power; and rather than seeing their need for a saviour, they simply want to get rid of Jesus and those who follow Him.

Religious Leaders

When Herod did not know where this King was to be born, he called on those who did: the Jewish chief priests and scribes (Matthew 2:4). Even though the religious experts knew that the promised Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem (verses 5–6; cf. Micah 5:2), they did not go to see Him. Bethlehem was only about six miles from Jerusalem, but, unlike the wise men, the religious leaders could not be bothered to make that short journey. In fact, it was the next generation of religious leaders who, like Herod, saw Jesus as a threat to their power and had Him put to death (Matthew 26:3–5, 57–59, 66).

It was not the pagans, who knew very little about the coming Messiah, that were indifferent to Jesus but those who were considered experts in the Scriptures. There are many people today who know the Scriptures, yet, when it comes to the identity of Jesus, they are indifferent to Him. Having the right information without being transformed by it is simply not enough.

The true response to the identity of Jesus was that of the wise men, who recognized Him as King, bowed down in worship before Him, and presented Him with their gifts (Matthew 2:11).

We also must keep in mind that this great event of the Saviour’s birth climaxes at His death on the Cross and ends with an empty tomb (Matthew 27:45–50, 28:1–10). As Christians, we don’t worship just a baby in manger but a risen King who has conquered sin and death and is now seated on His throne (Matthew 26:64).