AiG–Canada Already Making Waves

A recent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) article commented on Ken Ham (founder of Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, and the Ark Encounter) being scheduled to speak at next year’s Alberta homeschooling convention.1 This piece was yet another example of the gross misrepresentation made by the mainstream Canadian media when covering the topic of biblical creation.

The article’s headline was “Top U.S. Creationist’s Invitation as Keynote Speaker for Alberta Homeschooling Convention Draws Fire,” and the article stated that the convention was “facing heat” for inviting a leading United States creationist to speak. Yet throughout the piece, only one person was referenced who was vocal in opposition. And who is the dissenter? Paul Ens, a disgruntled father from Calgary who says he used to be a Christian. He runs a YouTube channel against creationists, and he was quoted by the CBC as saying,

As a citizen of Alberta and a father, I’m very concerned that Ken Ham is being brought in on multiple levels — primarily that he is a science denier. He denies evolution, he denies the age of the Earth.

The Same Old Song and Dance

Typical of these hit-piece articles, CBC accuses Ken Ham of being anti-science and a “science denier.” Why? Because he doesn’t believe in the story of evolution and its required millions of years of earth history. One quote from Ens declares,

Unfortunately, Ken’s material is so anti-science, anti-education, his entire ministry is based upon keeping people back and holding back ideas.

In the big picture, we have one atheist who isn’t happy about Ken coming to Alberta, while thousands of Christians are excited about one of the most dynamic Bible-defending speakers (whose speaking schedule is absolutely maxed out) taking the time to fly from the United States to share with us. But whom does the CBC feature? The atheist.

Is It “Science”?

Also typical of Canada’s mainstream media is the article’s complete lack of clarification between operational and historical science. This differentiation between the two is not simply a creationist distinction. Famous evolutionist Ernst Mayr said,

Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.2

So the accusation that biblical creationists have anything against operational science is a fallacy. What we take issue with is the historical narrative of evolution, the unobserved storytelling about the past that totally contradicts what Scripture plainly teaches and undermines the authority of God’s Word.

Many evolutionists like Ens claim evolution is “science” and creation is “faith”

Many evolutionists like Ens claim evolution is “science” and creation is “faith.” But when the average person thinks of science, they naturally consider something observable, repeatable, and testable. For example, science has determined water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level on our planet. Anyone can repeat the experiment in their kitchen. “But has anyone observed one creature turn into a different kind of creature with novel forms, functions and features during their own lifetime?”3

The story of evolution clearly fits into the category of historical science, where a researcher

1. observes facts in the present,

2. attempts to come up with a plausible explanation as to what happened in the past in order to

3. explain how they came to be the way they are today.

If the story of evolution were operational/observable science, we “would expect that evolutionists should be able to give us numerous examples of having observed evolution ‘in action.’ How many [examples] do they actually have? None, according to [arguably] the most famous evolution (and atheopathy) promoter on the planet [Professor Richard Dawkins]!”4 He said,

We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on.5

Dawkins has also put it this way:

Evolution has been observed, it’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.6

And in case some might think these were simply gaffes on his part, Dawkins reiterated his conclusion a couple of years later on Britain’s TV Channel 4 that evolution isn’t observable/repeatable science:

Nobody has actually seen evolution take place over a long period but they have seen the after effects, and the after effects are massively supported. It is like a case in a court of law where nobody can actually stand up and say I saw the murder happen and yet you have got millions and millions of pieces of evidence which no reasonable person can possibly dispute.7

But even in a court case, opposing lawyers often come to different conclusions based on the exact same facts. The popular phrase “facts speak for themselves” suggests that the only possible conclusion is patently obvious. However, we should remember that the story of evolution is just one way to interpret the facts we see in the natural world.

Just as with the courtroom scenario Dawkins describes, the facts can and should (in order to promote due process) be allowed to be interpreted according to different viewpoints. That is what being open-minded and scientific is about: allowing yourself to be exposed to new ideas and different ways of looking at things. Unfortunately in the public school system here in Canada, how are young people taught concerning the question of origins and where we all come from ultimately? Just one way: molecules-to-man evolution is fact.

No wonder so many Canadians (including Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, agnostics, atheists, and so on) are beginning to choose to homeschool their children rather than having a specific agenda imposed on their children.

It’s “All About Helping the Poor Children”

The CBC article presents an emotional “plea for the children’s future.” Ens says he “would like to spare both my children and other children from being kind of behind in life because they followed these backwards teachings.”

We need to teach children that they are all created in the image of God and thus have inherent worth, that there are moral absolutes which govern behavior in a civilized society, and that there is true meaning to life which gives us ultimate hope. Instead, evolutionists say we should teach them they are the result of chance, that there is no absolute morality—and thus there is no meaning to life? Is this supposedly good for the kids? Just look at the change in morality and ethics in the Western culture in the last three generations as a metric for gauging this type of progressive agenda.

As the late atheist William Provine stated,

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear, and I must say that these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposeful forces of any kind, no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be completely dead. That’s just all—that’s gonna be the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.8

Although Ens claims AiG is “anti-education” and the “entire ministry is based upon keeping people back and holding back ideas,” he himself said in a radio interview (posted along with the article) that he feels “all materials that everyone would have to buy would have to be on a list of pre-approved materials and/or that parents would have to put a lesson plan together that would be approved by ‘someone’ . . . so that they have enough science in them that our children won’t be hindered.”9

Who is actually advocating holding back ideas?

Again, the science Ens is talking about isn’t the type of science that produces technology like an MRI scanning machine (invented by the brilliant scientist and biblical creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian). He’s arguing that the story of evolution be mandated in schools and taught as fact. So who is actually advocating holding back ideas? Why should parents be forced by the government to teach their children only the humanists’ creation story and not biblical creation? Who exactly would be that “someone” who needs to approve what children are taught? An atheist like him?

Far from AiG telling people not to teach their children about evolution, we actually advocate you teach your children all about it! Show them the massive scientific problems with it and how the facts we see in the world actually support God’s Word.

A Wake-Up Call for Canadian Christians

It was interesting for me to see the responses from many Christians who interacted with the online posts generated from the article, as well as from the folks who responded to AiG–Canada and me personally. Many Christians replied with fear and anxiety, and that’s exactly what the humanists want. And think about it—this was one guy with a bone to pick who got featured on CBC nationwide.

I used to be an atheist, so I have seen both sides of this origins argument firsthand. It was exposure to biblical creation that God used to open my eyes to the truth of Scripture. Our number one goal is getting answers to people (especially our youth) who desperately need them, and Ken Ham’s visit to Alberta, Canada will be an amazing time to get equipped to be able to defend your faith!

Many Christians can readily see the agenda that is being forced upon us here in Canada. But some believers still haven’t realized what is really happening in our society and why our country has changed so much. It is the same agenda our governor general reinforced in her recent speech at an Ottawa policy convention where she questioned how it was still possible in the age of “science” (read “evolution”) that people believed “divine intervention” created life.10 It is an agenda of the religion of secular humanism being increasingly imposed on our culture.

The radicalization of young people as they are being being exposed to all sorts of nonsense in public schools isn’t enough for the secularists

The radicalization of young people as they are being exposed to all sorts of nonsense in public schools isn’t enough for the secularists. They want to control what goes into the minds of all our children, hence this attack on homeschoolers. They want to cause fear and doubt in the average Canadian (seemingly it’s “what are those radical Christians teaching their children!?”) and demonize anyone who doesn’t fall in line with their growing radical agenda.

AiG’s Mission Confirmed

We are happy to see that the launch of AiG–Canada has already gotten the attention of secularists. We should see these attacks as confirmation that the battle of the age—the attack on the authority of Scripture—is just as Ken Ham has been teaching for the last 40 years. It is the attack on Genesis chapters 1–11. But there are answers: Answers in Genesis!