The information on your website is so illogical and wrong that it’s hilarious. Yet I feel worried that there are so many people who obviously believe this @!*&%$. I’m an Australian and I feel utterly embarrassed to think that Ken Ham is an Australian. And also someone that supposedly has an applied science degree from the university of queensland? Just because you believe in something doesn’t make it true. It’s one thing to read the bible’s stories and garner moral lessons from them, but to take its word literally? The bible is a historical book, which has been edited and changed over history. This site’s utter hate of science is ridiculous. Scientific thought is logical and critical thinking. The thoughts and ideas on this site are illogical and disgusting. Just because you can’t explain something or science is yet to explain it, doesn’t mean that the unexplainable is attributed to an unseen entity. This site even tries to refute things that science clearly explains. It’s just sad!
Thanks for sending us an email. I am replying below to your comments and questions. Please note that my comments are said with sincerity. (I understand that tone is sometimes difficult to display in writing, so I wanted to be up front about it.)
The information on your website is so illogical and wrong
Such as? This is called an unsubstantiated allegation, which you agreed not to send when you agreed to the feedback rules. So I’m surprised such a claim was made without any backing. We want the information on the website to be both logical and correct, so if there was anything to be challenged, please point it out so we can revisit it to make sure it is accurate and modify it if necessary.
Based on the humanistic worldview promoted in your email (i.e., the Bible is not true), why do you think logic exists? For logic to exist, the Bible must be true. The sheer fact that you believe logic exists betrays the very worldview to which you pay lip service. In other words, your worldview is self-refuting. Please see Atheism: An Irrational Worldview.
that it’s hilarious.
This is an epithet fallacy. But consider the humor of someone claiming something is wrong and chuckling about it, and yet they cannot name why it is wrong.
Yet I feel worried
Why would an evolutionist worry (see Luke 12:22)? If everything follows either purely random processes or purely predetermined material results of chemical reactions, then why worry? In such a worldview, this is illogical.
Again, the fact that people worry reveals that they want some sort of moral code, which is meaningless in an evolutionary worldview, by the way. But I’m glad you have the sense of worrying because it means that you want morality. I want to encourage you, however, that morality comes from God.
that there are so many people who obviously believe this @!*&%$.
This is another epithet fallacy.
I’m an Australian and I feel utterly embarrassed to think that Ken Ham is an Australian.
Why? The feeling of embarrassment in an evolutionary worldview is simply chemical reactions in the brain and is no different from chemical reactions for love and compassion.
But again, why the sense of morality in an evolutionary worldview? What is going on here is that in your heart of hearts, you know God exists (Romans 1:20–21), and God is the basis for morality since He is the ultimate Law Giver. You are trying to suppress that knowledge (Romans 1:18), but you must still borrow from the biblical worldview in order to uphold some form of morality. Please see Evolution and the Challenge of Morality.
And also someone that supposedly has an applied science degree from the university of queensland?
Not supposedly; Mr. Ham earned it years ago. This should come as no surprise since Christians earn advanced degrees every year at universities all over the world and are not anti-science. But consider that science is possible simply because the Bible is true, so this should come as no surprise either. In fact, most of the great founders of scientific disciplines believed the Bible. Please see Which Scientists of the Past Believed in a Creator?
Just because you believe in something doesn’t make it true.
Ditto. What makes things true is predicated on the possibility of truth existing. In a materialistic, atheistic universe, why would truth, which is immaterial, exist? This is a major problem for materialists. Of course, truth is not a problem for Christians since God is both the truth (John 14:6) and the source of truth.
Without His Word, truth is meaningless. Of course, there is so much more we could dive into from this point, but that’s another discussion.
It’s one thing to read the bible’s stories and garner moral lessons from them,
But morality is meaningless if God does not exist. In a purely evolutionary worldview, chemicals react. Why would anyone care about morality unless there is an ultimate standard to reveal what morality is? God is that standard, and in His Word He has told us what is right and what is wrong.
but to take its word literally?
What do you mean by literally? Literally has traditionally meant to take something the way it is written (not the false modern concept that everything must be taken in a strict literal sense—i.e., that the metaphorical use of “pillars of the earth” means the earth is sitting on top of pillars in space). If it is a metaphor, then it should be understood as a metaphor. If the writing style is literal history, then it is literal history and should be interpreted as such. If it is a song, then follow the principles for understanding a song. This concept is entirely biblical. Please see Don’t Creationists Believe Some “Wacky” Things?, How Should We Interpret the Bible, Part 1: Principles for Understanding God’s Word, and How Should We Interpret the Bible, Part 2: Is Genesis 1–11 Historical Narrative?.
But consider something else here. What if I were to argue that evolutionists should not interpret evolutionary papers literally? They should reinterpret them. So when they say, “millions of years,” it should be reinterpreted to mean six days. When they state things “evolved,” it should be interpreted to minor changes within the various kinds. Would the evolutionists accept this? Not at all. So why attack Christians for trusting what God’s Word says in its context and literary style?
The bible is a historical book,
Well, it is more than that (psalms and songs, genealogies, prayers, prophecies, etc.). But I’m glad you agree that it is a historical book in some sense anyway. This very premise challenges the evolutionary ideas of origins at their very core. So how can one trust an evolutionary history of billions of years, knowing the Bible is indeed history?
which has been edited and changed over history.
This is an unsubstantiated allegation. Any student of this subject would say the opposite after only a little research. The Bible’s words have been attested to through thousands of ancient manuscripts that repeatedly affirm the texts have been faithfully transmitted to us.
This site’s utter hate of science is ridiculous.
This is false and is another epithet fallacy, as well as equivocation. As an aside, it should have been obvious on our website how much we do love and enjoy science. However, I think the equivocation fallacy is pertinent here. Equating science with an evolutionary worldview is a fallacy.
The issue is not science versus religion, as many seem to think. It is worldview versus worldview. More specifically, it is humanism (with its views of evolution and millions of years) versus biblical Christianity (with its views of creation and thousands of years). For more on the age dispute, please see How Old Is the Earth?
We both have the same science, and when it comes to repeatable, experimental science (known as operational science), both evolutionists and creationists would agree almost every time! Where we disagree is our interpretations of the past (i.e., origins).
The reason we disagree here is due to our differing authorities. Is God the ultimate authority, or is mankind the ultimate authority on the subject? This is the debate—humanism versus biblical Christianity.
It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. (Psalm 118:8)
It will be a sad day when people who rejected God stand before Him in judgment (Hebrews 9:27) and tell Him that they trusted the false ideas of man over what God lovingly revealed to mankind. How should a just God respond?
Scientific thought is logical and critical thinking.
We agree, but again, this view is only possible because the Bible is true. (Keep in mind that the point is not that people need to believe the Bible is true, but simply that the Bible is true.)
The thoughts and ideas on this site are illogical and disgusting.
Again, this is an unsubstantiated allegation and question-begging epithet.
Just because you can’t explain something or science is yet to explain it, doesn’t mean that the unexplainable is attributed to an unseen entity.
This is a reification fallacy. “Science” doesn’t explain things; it is a methodology. People use it as a tool to help explain things, but science doesn’t make the statements; people do. This reveals how much faith is given to the religion of humanism. People have such faith in other people to come up with strange stories to explain things. This puts the ultimate authority in mankind. When the ancient Greeks didn’t know the answers, they came up with some fancy stories that fit within their worldview. And sadly generations of people believed those stories, and now we look back and call those stories mythology.
The same thing is going on today. In an evolutionary worldview, when people don’t know an answer, they come up with stories that fit within their worldview (e.g., Oort Cloud, abiogenesis, missing links, etc.) I look forward to a time when people look back and the evolutionary stories as mythology. But the point is that evolution, like Greek mythology is a product of the religion of humanism.
The issue is that when God speaks on a subject, He cannot be wrong, but fallible, sinful, imperfect human beings can and will be wrong when they try to explain things, especially about the past, apart from God and His Word.
This site even tries to refute things that science clearly explains.
Again, this is a reification fallacy. “Science” does not explain things; people do. I’ve had some people say science speaks, tells, or explains things to them, but what they really mean is that scientists speak, tell, or explain their views of the data.
Also, this is another unsubstantiated allegation.
It’s just sad!
This is an appeal to emotion fallacy, which is especially illogical in an evolutionary worldview because everything would ultimately be meaningless (like sadness) in a strictly chemical universe. This actually undercuts the anti-Bible argument that has been presented in this email.
I want to encourage you to consider abandoning the humanistic worldview with its materialistic evolutionary bent. A materialistic evolutionary worldview is illogical on many fronts (such as having no basis for logic, which is immaterial, and no basis for truth or knowledge).
With that in mind, I would like you to consider a biblical worldview, which does have a basis for logic, truth, knowledge, and more—including morality, which seems to be important to you (to your credit). Please take some time to read this message: What Does It Mean to Be “Saved”? This article explains salvation, one of the major themes in the Bible.
With kindness in Christ,
Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S.