Ken Ham Does Not Speak For Me…

Ken Ham Bill Nye Debate

I am an Evangelical Christian. I believe the Bible is God’s inspired word. I believe that Jesus is God in the flesh who died for the sins of the world and rose again bodily on the third day. And yet, according to Ken Ham in his historic debate with Bill Nye tonight at the Creation Museum, because of my belief in Evolution, I cannot be who I am. I cannot be both a follower of Jesus Christ and someone who believes in the evidence presented by the vast majority of scientists worldwide. Or at least, it is a very unlikely fit. Even though I insist on a theistic evolution model that includes God as the beginning point, the uncaused cause of the universe. Even though I affirm all of the core doctrines of the Christian faith and even though I have had an undeniable experience with Jesus Christ, according to Ken Ham, it must be difficult for me to be a Christian. I am deceived and adhering to one of the greatest Satanic lies ever created. All because I believe what the majority of people on planet earth do — that our beautiful planet is millions of years old and that all of life has common origins and undergoes a process of evolution that helps us to adapt, progress, and survive. Makes sense…

Those of us in the Evangelical world understand that Ken Ham represents a very small minority of Christians worldwide. The amount of Christ followers that believe in his version of creationism is waning and the reality seems to be that most millennial Christians are discovering balance between scientific fact and the experience of our faith. These are very exciting times. But tonight, thousands upon thousands tuned in to watch Ken Ham speak for “Christianity” or at least “Evangelical Christianity”, both of which I identify with. Thousands upon thousands were exposed to a man who can barely be called a scientist let alone a theologian who represented the perspective of Christianity against Bill Nye’s scientific agnosticism.

Related: Ken Ham v. Bill Nye…If Only Christians Were This Passionate About the Poor

For me, tonight’s debate was incredibly troubling. As I sat and heard Ken Ham argue that belief in evolution can lead to abortion, euthanasia, and killing our grandparents, I felt like beating our heads against the wall. As Ken Ham repeatedly responded to Nye’s request for evidence with “Well Bill, there is a book that gives us an answer to that question…” I had to restrain ourselves from screaming at our computer screen. Every time Ken Ham repeated his position that “Creationism is the only viable option…”, my jaw dropped in awe at the arrogance of that statement. Because the version of Christian faith that Ken Ham espoused tonight is not the version of Christianity that I am a part of. Ham’s understanding of what it means that the Bible is God’s inspired word is very different from what that phrase means to me. The presupposition that Ken Ham built his entire argument against Evolution on — that the Bible is God’s inerrant science textbook — is one that the majority of Christians and even Evangelicals reject. I was troubled because tonight it seemed like Ken Ham became the official spokesperson for Christians worldwide. But let me be very clear, Ken Ham does not speak for me or my faith.

The Jesus I worship doesn’t offer me scientific explanations about the world around me. The Jesus I worship is the being through which all things were created, seen and unseen. He is the Lord of the sciences. He is the creator of the Evolutionary process. My Jesus doesn’t demand that I believe one theory or another about the origins of life. My Jesus is more concerned with the content of our characters and how we love each other than with our position on any scientific, political, or even theological issue. (as Steve Mattson so beautifully points out here) My faith is one that embraces doubt, questioning, exploration, discovery, and science. My faith is not rooted in any doctrine or idea but in a relationship with the God of love. And so when Ken Ham and those of his ilk stand up and proclaim that Evolution and modern science is “opposed to God”, I am left to wonder which God he’s talking about. Because the God I know and worship has always been able to withstand my questions. He is the God who I believe is behind all scientific discovery. But apparently, Ken’s God is not. Instead, the God Ken seems to represent has apparently given us all of the answers to the mysteries of the universe in the Bible and expects us to cease thinking, exploring, and learning. Because the Bible says, we are to believe it, and that settles it. My understanding of God is one that makes God far more expansive than that. My understanding is that the creations of our amazing God go far beyond our ability to comprehend. We will also be discovering. Science will always have new questions to answer. And the more we find out, the more we will be left speechless as we behold the glory of our universe.

Yes, I am an Evangelical Christian. I believe the Bible. And I also believe that our earth was created through a process called Evolution. None of these notions contradict. In fact, these all together actually enrich my faith. Evolution causes me to stand in awe before the amazing Creator of the Universe and worship him for his majesty and creativity. And on this, I differ greatly from Ken Ham. Ham does not speak for me nor does he speak for the faith of the vast majority of Christians worldwide. To my non-Christian friends, please understand this. Please know that Christian faith does not automatically equal anti-science and anti-knowledge. In fact, for many of us, I think that kind of faith is one that is inherently contradictory to our understanding of who our God is.

For a fantastic perspective and reflection on the Nye/Ham debate, check out my conversation with my friend and theologian Dr. Peter Enns, former senior fellow of the BioLogos foundation. He succinctly offers the perspective of the non-creationist majority of Christians. It’s definently worth a listen:

Revangelical: Peter Enns Responds to the Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate (Final) from The Revangelical Movement on Vimeo.

Also by Brandan: From “Good News” to Fox News, How Franklin Graham is Using His Aging Father

I want to thank Dr. Peter Enns for joining me tonight. I so appreciate his thoughts and perspectives.

“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”

–Joseph H. Taylor, Jr.

What are your thoughts on the debate? Is Christianity compatible with Evolution? I would love to hear your thoughts.

Photo Credit: AP Photo/The Courier-Journal, Matt Stone




Print Friendly

About the Author

Brandan Robertson

Brandan RobertsonBrandan Robertson is a writer, activist, speaker, and dreamer behind The Revangelical Movement. He has a B.A. in Pastoral and Biblical Studies from Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and is pursuing his Masters of Divinity degree from Wesley Theological Seminary. Brandan writes for a number of prominent outlets and is a frequent guest on national and international radio programs. Follow him on Twitter @BrandanJR.View all posts by Brandan Robertson →

  • Just passing through

    So do you believe that people were at one point morally pure and then had a Fall? If so, how do you reconcile that with evolution? If not, then why is the imperfection we have evolved into offensive to God?

  • Digger

    Ken Ham DOES speak for me. While I do have a profound love for science–I am a scientist by trade–unlike many worldly scholars, I do not automatically discount any and all science submitted by Christians. I pay attention to the fact that most scientific papers never get published in respected journals based solely on the fact that they are from Christians. Most importantly, I pay attention to valid criticism of what most people wrongly assume is solid scientific fact.
    Much of the theory of evolution has been firmly exposed as wrong, yet the scientists who do this work are rarely published. But thanks to the internet, the information is available for all to see and form an intelligent opinion. Sadly, most refuse to look at the information, so their opinions remain uninformed, unintelligent, and unscientific. (If you discount any scientific work without examining the work, you are operating outside the realm of scientific integrity.)

    • Digger

      Slight correction: Ken Ham doesn’t speak for me, the Bible speaks for me. Ken Ham just happens to believe the same thing I believe–the Word of God.

      • Geoff Ramsay

        I think when we say something like “the Bible speaks for me” we need to stop and seriously ask, ourselves, our peers, and God, if we in fact are trying to speak for the Bible.

        I also take the position that the Bible is a book about the Word of God, written with divine inspiration. I think from the New Testament view, the Word of God is very much alive.

    • Rick Hartzog

      Hello, Digger.

      You say: “I am a scientist by trade… I pay attention to the fact that most scientific papers never get published in respected journals based solely on the fact that they are from Christians” and “Much of the theory of evolution has been firmly exposed as wrong, yet the scientists who do this work are rarely published.”

      I would like you to flesh this out for us a little, if you don’t mind. I am very skeptical of these statements, considering you apparently think AiG/Ken Ham are producing legitimate science. You say: “…thanks to the internet, the information is available for all to see and form an intelligent opinion. Sadly, most refuse to look at the information, so their opinions remain uninformed, unintelligent, and unscientific.”

      How about pointing me to some of this information on the internet? I’m not afraid to look at it. I would truly like to see whether your first claim above, that you are a scientist by trade, can be supported by what you deem to be science.

      Thanks.

      • Digger

        No thanks. I have no interest in engaging in a protracted effort to prove an academic foundation and bibliography for the words I type in an internet blog.
        The information you seek is easy enough to find at AiG, as well as dozens of University websites, that a sharp thinker such as your self should have no trouble finding it.
        Since I am not cooperating with your silly little dare, feel free publically call me a liar, ridicule my bona fides, and scoff at my intellect, or lack thereof. It won’t hurt my feelings at all.

        • Rick Hartzog

          You made certain truth claims. I asked for evidence supporting those claims. As a scientist, surely you understand that evidence for claims is a reasonable request? And if your claims are not supported by evidence, then I, nor anyone else, has any logical, intellectual obligation to accept them?

          And that, just perchance, the same weakness besets these papers you say are not being published: not the fact that they were written by “Christians” but that they are not supported by evidence?

          I don’t think it’s necessary, at this point, to call you names.

          Thanks.

        • Paul

          Ken Ham doesn’t present scientific evidence, just scientific opinions… and he discredits and misrepresents other Christians who are scientists and theologians who disagree with HIS interpretation of the Bible and Science. Ken will never speak for me, and I praise the Lord for that!

    • 22044

      I just saw a few other comments on a fb post that mentioned the debate. They reported that Mr. Ham presented the gospel at some point during the event. If so, that is great news!

      • 22044

        I probably shouldn’t respond to downvotes, but downvoting a celebration that the gospel is going out…? I should get that at an atheist site, not a Christian site.

        People read these and this gives them a poor impression.

        I hope the involved party receives grace and mercy abounding.

        • Digger

          22044, I agree with this sentiment, but I would classify this site more of an atheist site than a Christian site, and not solely for their extremely low opinion of scripture.

          • Lamont Cranston

            It’s rare to see idolators such as yourself come right out and admit their sin.

          • Digger

            Not as rare you think. If you were to read through all of the posts I’ve made, you will see me admitting to be a sinner many, many times. That is a huge difference between people who SAY they are Christians and people who live like Christians. The latter admit that they are sinful creatures. Look how hard homosexuals try to convince the world that homosexuality is not a sin! A truly saved perosn would not deny the sinfulness of sexual imorality.
            Neither is it rare for a righteous, enlightened saint such as yourself to point at me and yell SINNER! You are in good company.

          • Lamont Cranston

            And yet you continue in your idolatry. Turn or burn!

          • If this is an atheist site, why are you two both so active on it?

          • Digger

            Because why hang out at the sites where everyone agrees with me? I prefer to spend my time talking about the Gospel with the lost. (I’m NOT saying that all here are lost–just most.) You might as well accuse Jesus of hanging out with tax collectors.

          • Digger

            Besides, I did not say it is an atheist web site, I said it is closer to being an atheist site than a Christian site. Subtle point, perhaps, but important to me.

          • 22044

            Read my post again, Emily.

        • Digger

          It is sad to see down votes on comments that say absolutely nothing controversial. For example, I have one comment on this page that merely asks for clarification. No opinions, nothing negative at all. The down votes can only be because the voters have hatred in their heart for me. That is the motivation behind a lot of them. That is a certain sign that the voter is not saved. (Feel free to down vote this comment–I’m aware I just suggested that many of you are not saved–even though you are self-deceived into thinking that you are.)

          • Joe

            Which comment was that? I want to make sure I didn’t downvote it by mistake; I’ll freely admit that sometimes I intend to upvote a comment but my finger slips and I don’t notice it.

          • 22044

            Well said, Mr. Digger. I’ll try not to comment on downvotes further for a while. Maybe 6 months or so. Or something like that. :)

          • Digger

            That one is from me. It isn’t becuase I have hatred in my heart toward you–God forbid! It is because you called me Mr. Digger. (Digger is actually my nickname–based on my career. I study fossils and rocks, specifically their association to one another.) I avoided becoming a professor largely to avoid being called Mr. anything!
            :)

          • 22044

            Heh. My error. Thanks for extending grace, Digger!

  • 22044

    Darwinian evolution or macro-evolution should be rejected, because it’s just bad science. Many non-Christians have valid criticisms of it.
    An example of scientific progress is continued discoveries of the complexities of human organs and systems, that debunk Darwinian evolution and will eventually leave it in the dust, except for its most irrational adherents.

    • 22044

      By the way, Brandon, Ken Ham is not the official spokesperson for Christians worldwide.
      But what is missing from your post is why the connections he made between evolution and abortion, euthanasia, and other kinds of murder aren’t there, rather than that you screamed at your television. The latter issues are troubling at least, and people’s attempts to study them should not be dismissed so easily.

      • Brandan Robertson

        That was the most disgusting and misinformed connection I have ever seen made. Ken Ham should be ashamed.

        • 22044

          Why?
          Heck of an assertion, Brandan.

        • 22044

          No reply? That’s OK, but then I should take your response with a grain of salt. And perhaps trust my gut that Ken Ham knows what he’s talking about.

    • Geoff Ramsay

      It’s not bad science, it’s early science.
      Bohr’s model of the atom is not really accurate, but it improved upon the accuracy of models at the time, and was useful in getting later and more accurate models.

      Also, the irreducible complexity argument a) only highlights a gap in understanding, it does not debunk all evolutionary hypothesis, and b) is not without criticism, for example, a number of models have been proposed for how an eye might form. It was a good critique though!

      For me, Theology answer the most import questions about creation: “Why?”
      Science offers answers for another question: “How?”
      Both Questions relate to an existence created by God.

      • 22044

        Early science…fair observation, but it should be assessed as bad science if new discoveries kick it to the curb. For any theory/idea, not just Darwinian evolution.

        I agree with your last paragraph though. Thanks for the response.

  • Jack Heller

    I recommend the books by John Polkinghorne, theoretical physicist, on faith and science. Tough reads for someone not a scientist (as I am not) but worth having a greater place in the discussion.

  • Frank

    I see no conflict between science and faith.

    That being said Brandan where does Jesus say following Him requires doubt?

    • 22044

      The first disciples and apostles, they better not have had doubt, at least not to the point that it’s celebrated.

      • Frank

        They had plenty of doubt and every time Jesus chastised them for it. The very idea that doubt is necessary is antithetical to everything Jesus said and did.

        • Jonathan Starkey

          Even if I doubt, I have faith in the one who was faithful.

          So much about doubt these days.:)

          • Frank

            Doubt allows people to sin and be ok with it. That’s why its so attractive these days.

          • jonathan starkey

            It’s liberal spirituality that they call mystery.

  • Geoff Ramsay

    Worth Quoting:
    “My faith is one that embraces doubt, questioning, exploration, discovery, and science. My faith is not rooted in any doctrine or idea but in a relationship with the God of love.”

    • Frank

      It is worth quoting to highlight the major flaw in the statement. Thanks!

    • Vince

      Embracing doubt has no place in faith. Doubt is a lack of faith not a comnponent of faith. We all have doubts but we need to understand where they came from and ask God to get rid of them. Who was it in the garden that planted the seed of doubt in Eve’s head?
      Your doubt is sinful and is covered by the blood of Jesus.

      • Hi Vince,

        I disagree. I once heard an analogy that really resonates with me. Bravery is not the absence of fear; it is acting nobly despite our fear. Similarly, faith is not the absence of doubt; it is trusting in God despite our doubts.

        I think doubt is a gift from God. It is a guard against sinful moral certainty.

        Shalom
        David

        • Vince

          How is moral certainty sinful? Doubt is not mentioned in the definition of faith in Heb 11:1. Words like assurance, confidence, conviction, evidence are used depending on the translation, doubt is not mentioned. Everyone has doubts I assume but to embrace them as part of your faith is not biblical as I can see. 1 Jn tells us how we can be sure we are saved without any doubt. Doubt wars with your faith and does not compliment it. Where does the Bible say that doubt is a gift from God?

          • Hi Vince –

            “How is moral certainty sinful?”

            When we grasp orthodoxy too tightly (the particular orthodoxy of any one of more than 9,000 Christian denominations), we crowd out the possibility of God in our lives.

            That’s not to say that there are no moral absolutes. “Thou shalt not kill”, for example, seems pretty cut and dried. Most people would agree that cold-blooded murder is morally impermissible (even so, we have disagreement about the efficacy of “just war” doctrine).

            However, in my understanding, if certainty leads to exclusion or harm, if it causes us to act in ways that are contrary to the example of Christ, then it is sinful. In the antebellum south, for example, many Christians were utterly convinced they were morally justified in owning slaves. Arguably, those who deny women full participation in the life of the church due to their gender are perpetrating injustice based on moral certitude. There is much moral certainty in the debate about the sinfulness of homosexuality. In the evolution debate, I see some creationists dismissing the faith of evolutionists and evolutionists condescending to the creationists – all out of a sense of moral correctness.

            I think there’s a strong warning in Romans 14-15 against this type of certainty. The “weak” believers were convinced that eating unclean meat and not keeping the Sabbath were serious moral lapses. The “strong” were judging and condescending to the legalists who were binding themselves to the law. They were each convinced of their own moral correctness. These were convictions that caused great division. Speaking to this, Paul says (14:4) “Who are you to judge someone else’s servants? Whether they are faithful or not is their own master’s concern. They will be faithful, because the Lord has the power to make them faithful.”

            The most godly people I know rarely make truth claims and they leave room for the possibility of being incorrect in their deeply-held, non-essential beliefs. I believe that posture creates greater capacity for the Holy Spirit to work in our lives.

            My sincere best to you.

          • Vince

            You seem real certain that uncertainty is the morally correct position.

            If you mean being ready to change your beliefs on non gospel doctrine, I agree with that. I am talking about doubting the gospel message, that is sinful but also covered by Jesus sacrifice.

            Best to you also.

      • disagree totally. “Doubt is the ants in the pants of faith. It keeps it alive and moving”-Frederich Buechner Faith has nothing to do with certainty; in fact, it has a WHOLE LOT to do with lack thereof, and proceeding anyway, top walk the walk.

  • otrotierra

    Thank you Brandan for another thoughtful and challenging commentary. And thankfully, Ken Ham and his fundamentalist followers are small in number both globally and historically.

    Neither Jesus nor scripture nor biblical history nor science support Ken Ham’s embarrassment last night. One has to wonder why Jesus isn’t enough for him and his followers.

    • Jonathan Starkey

      If you didn’t have the creation story, you would sorely be lacking in your understanding of Jesus.

      The first 3 chapters of the Bible are simply amazing.

      • Guest

        Amazing is an understatement. There is some very weird stuff happening in those three chapters.

        • Jonathan Starkey

          Weird never entered my mind.

  • Obscuritus

    Believers in God and the Bible at some point had to accept the previously unknown and certainly unacceptable truth that the world was neither flat nor the center of the universe.

    • Digger

      Isaiah 40:22 said that the world is round thousands of years before science figured it out. Christianity NEVER made that claim. And the Hebrew word that was used–chuwg–is correctly translated sphere.

      • Mark Turner

        Wrong. chug means flat circle, like a coin! Dur ,means sphere.

    • Digger

      Again, someone making more claims about science without even bothering to know the truth, and without knowing what Christian scientists OR the Bible says. Uninformed, unintelligent, and unscientific.

    • Digger

      And while I’m here, here is what the Christian, Copernicus, said of Aristotle’s theory of an Earth-centered universe:
      “Aristotle’s cosmology is too inelegant. It is no sure scheme for the movements of the machinery of the world which has been built for us by the Best and Most Orderly Workman of all.”

      • John

        There were Greeks with Heliocentric and Geocentric beliefs. Ptolemy is really the guy for geocentricity. His theories were much more mathematically evolved.

        And for the record, there isn’t much evidence of anyone having ever believed the world was flat. All you have to do is sail to work it out. When the ship goes away, the hull disappears, then the mast. When it comes back, it does the opposite.

        • Digger

          Yes, that is right. Only one strange cult is on record as believing the Earth was flat. My point is that uninformed people like to accuse Christians of believing so, even though it is utterly false. They hear something over and over and believe it to be truth. That’s why so many believe in evolution, yet so few have any idea about the theory beyond the notion of “From the Goo to the Zoo to You.”

  • I agree that the evidence for an ancient earth and common ancestry is overwhelming, and that no Bible verse, statement of Jesus or core Christian theological teaching has ever mandated that the faithful interpret Genesis literally. More than anything else, I agree that Ken Ham does not speak for me, or most Christians, and that my acceptance of mainstream, evidence-based science does not mean I can’t still be a “biblical creationist.”

    Thanks for this, Brandan. Very well-written.

    • JimB

      Tyler, you say, “no Bible verse, statement of Jesus or core Christian theological teaching has ever mandated that the faithful interpret Genesis literally”. But sin came by Adam, and death by sin. If there is an “ancient earth ancestry”, and living things died before the fall, then God and the Bible are false. This mandates that one either believe the “science” of evolution or the fact that God created it all just as He reveals in Scripture. Belief in creation, sin, and death is a salvation issue, not merely a theoretical science issue. Either you believe that Jesus died to conquer sin and death, that entered through the first man Adam, or you believe that Genesis is a pleasant allegorical and metaphorical fairy tale describing a time when apes became men, having already experienced death, for sins they did not commit. To say there was death before sin says that God did not make a good and perfect creation, and calls Him a liar when He reveals to us that the wages of sin is death. It makes death out to no longer be the debt due us for sin, but no more than a natural process. It takes the judgement away, and makes the cross unnecessary.

      • Hey Jim, thanks for the comment. I absolutely affirm that sin is destructive and a universal problem for humanity, but I believe scripture teaches that its consequence is separation from God — spiritual death in this life and eternal separation in the next (the second death). Physical death is an inherent part of the current created order — part of the “old order of things” that Rev. 21:4 talks about — an order that will one day be undone.

        I have two main problems with your view. The first is biblical. The Old Testament says nothing about physical death being the punishment for sin. The closest it comes is the punishment for Adam and Eve’s partaking of the tree, but even that seems to refer to something other than literal physical death, since God said they would die “the day” they ate, and they didn’t die that day (not physically anyway). The OT certainly never once blames all physical death on Adam and Eve, which is strange since the authors discuss and even lament death so frequently. In the NT, most of the time that Paul speaks of “death,” it is clear he is speaking of non-literal, spiritual death (like when he talks of himself being “dead,” e.g., Romans 7:9) or it is ambiguous. Even if he is talking about physical death, every one of Paul’s statements is limited to humans. Nowhere in scripture, and I mean nowhere, does it say that animal death and suffering did not occur — was, in fact, impossible — before human sin entered the world. So, even if Paul is speaking of physical death, the Bible has no problem with the vast majority of the fossil record. I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

        The second problem I have with your view is theological. If physical death (the first death) is part of the punishment for sin, as you say, and not an inherent part of the created order, as I say, then I think we have a problem with core Christian theology. Orthodox teaching is that Jesus’ work on the cross was sufficient to pay the penalty for all sin. If physical death is part of that penalty, then all Christians should be functionally immortal. We should not have to pay that penalty. The paradox seems to be very simple: Either Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient to pay the full penalty for sin (which I find completely distasteful and I’m sure you do as well), or physical death simply is not part of that penalty.

        • JimB

          The Old Testament is filled with examples of the penalty of sin being death. Examples include, adultery, fornication, bestiality, murder, kidnapping, and more. God kills thousands of the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt for their sin, disobedience, whining, and lack of faith. David took a census, and the penalty was the death of huge numbers of people. I think the more difficult task would be showing where in the Bible God reveals that death isn’t really the penalty for sin.

          I’m going to have to still disagree with you. God did indeed say, in the day. You and I either have to take God at His word, or you and I have the very same problem. You see, you say that the word day, used also of creation, means a period of time longer than a day. I say that a the word for day, means a literal day, 24 hours when applied to creation.

          In your case, either the man did not begin to die, and lose his immortality on the day he ate of the fruit, or he only died spiritually in that 24 hour period, yet you also hold that a day is not a literal 24 hours, but an extended period of time.

          In my case, I believe that man did die, both physically and spiritually. That is, that just as a man with cancer, heart disease, aids, or the very processes of like begins the journey to the moment of death from the moment he is born. Before sin came into the world, this was not the case. Man was created a living soul, a man that was fully alive, an immortal soul. Because of his sin, the creation came under the same subjection of sin and bondage. We see that even today, all of the creation, man, beast, plants, and rocks are affected by the sins of men. I disagree that the Old Testament does not say that physical death was a result of sin.

          Adam Clarke put it this way

          “Thou shalt surely die – מות תמות moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally accomplished; every moment of man’s life may be considered as an act of dying, till soul and body are separated. Other meanings have been given of this passage, but they are in general either fanciful or incorrect.”

          You are partially correct in your view that “If physical death is part of that penalty, then all Christians should be functionally immortal.” Jesus himself told us that if we drank of Him, we would never die. We received immortality and eternal life when we were saved. you are entirely correct in saying that “Jesus’ work on the cross was sufficient to pay the penalty for all sin.”

          I see your paradox, in believing that man should not die physically if He is saved. But 1 Corinthians gives us the answer. While we have received eternal life spiritually at the new birth, there is coming a day when our bodies too will put on immortality. You were born mortal flesh, and we know that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.Your body was sown in corruption, but one day will be raised in incorruption. We know this has not happened yet, even though death was conquered, it has not yet been swallowed up in victory. He says “When” the mortal has put on immortality, “Then” shall be brought to pass the saying that was written “Death is swallowed up in victory”

          “So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.”

          and again He says, it is a “not yet” event, here in Romans 8:23 “And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”

          As for your statement, “Nowhere in scripture, and I mean nowhere, does it say that animal death and suffering did not occur — was, in fact, impossible — before human sin entered the world.” I again disagree. Even the ground was cursed because of mans sin. (Gen 3:18-19) You cannot give me one single verse that proves that death occurred before sin, can you? Yet the Bible is full of references to death being connected to sin.

          Romans 8 tells us that the entire creation was made subject because of sin.

          Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

          Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

          Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

          Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

          Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

          • Hey Jim, thanks for the response.

            First of all, you mentioned a few times that God intervened in scripture and punished people for their sin with death, but none of these actually support your point. The claim is that plain mortality — the ability to die — is the punishment for Adam’s “fall,” and not just for humans but for everything else as well. That is what we need evidence for. Clearly, there is a difference between Onan being smote immediately for his sin, and Adam dying 900 years later after committing the sin that supposedly merited this punishment.

            God’s direct actions in scripture are clearly outliers; they are separate from the fact that every person will die (without divine intervention), regardless of the sins that person has or has not committed.

            You see, you say that the word day, used also of creation, means a period of time longer than a day. I say that a the word for day, means a literal day, 24 hours when applied to creation.

            In your case, either the man did not begin to die, and lose his immortality on the day he ate of the fruit, or he only died spiritually in that 24 hour period, yet you also hold that a day is not a literal 24 hours, but an extended period of time.

            I never said that I think the Hebrew word “yom” doesn’t refer to a 24-hour period. It means many different things in scripture, sometimes just the 12-hour, daylight portion of a day, sometimes an indeterminate amount of time, and just about everything in between.

            I would also submit that “began to die,” which is a phrase I hear folks with similar views use frequently, is a meaningless term. The punishment God warned of is that he would die, not become mortal and not “begin to die.” Either he died that day or he didn’t. “Beginning to die” means nothing. By this logic you could say a newborn baby has “begun to die.”

            We see that even today, all of the creation, man, beast, plants, and rocks are affected by the sins of men.

            This is an extraordinary statement that I just had to pick out and ask you to expound on a bit, if you don’t mind. How are rocks affected by the sins of man?

            Even the ground was cursed because of mans sin. (Gen 3:18-19)

            Yes, the ground was cursed, in a highly specific way as it relates to Adam. Genesis 3 says nothing about, nor does it imply, some widespread curse affecting the entire universe. And it certainly says nothing about animals (besides the serpent) becoming capable of death and eating each other.

            You cannot give me one single verse that proves that death occurred before sin, can you?

            “Proves”? Probably not, but I have a few thoughts. For one, what possible purpose could the tree of life have served in the garden of Eden, if no living thing was capable of death anyway? It would have been completely useless. And in fact, the only time that the tree could have served any purpose (according to YECs), after Adam’s sin, was also the only time that God forbade its use and set up a flaming cherubim to guard it. It just doesn’t make any sense. What makes more sense is that the author of Genesis was teaching that humans were created mortal and could only be made immortal by eating from the tree.

            And another thing — a world where all creatures are called to be fruitful and multiply would soon be a very unpleasant one if there were no death. The earth would have been “filled,” and its resources completely exhausted, within a handful of generations. Also, in a world where there is no pain, why did God curse Eve saying he would increase (or multiply) her pain in childbirth? Sounds like Eve already knew what pain was and was fully capable of experiencing it. This “multiply” is the same “multiply” given in God’s command to reproduce. The Hebrew word in both cases refers to an increase of something already in existence, not the ex nihilo creation of something entirely new.

            I do believe Romans 8 refers to the temporaneous nature of this life, but it is God who imposed it upon us, not Adam or anyone else. For who else could be the “him who subjected it” in Romans 8:20 besides God? Adam had no power to do that, and he certainly didn’t do what he did “in hope” that we would be set free from the bondage that he alone was supposedly responsible for. Romans 8 does speak to an important truth about the created order, but it is not, as far as I can tell, a reference to the curse, Adam, Eve, or the fall — which is why it doesn’t mention any of that.

  • Vince

    I don’t see how evolution can be compatible with the Bible without extremely twisting scripture; however, I also don’t read anywhere in the bible that you need to believe in creationism to be a Christian. You need to put your trust in Christ for the forgiveness of your sins that has nothing to do with creation doctrine. when you start adding requirements to be saved the gospel is no longer “good news”.

    • Digger

      The good news actually has a lot to do with the bad news. The story of Adam and Eve and the flood are there for a reason. It is directly connected to our salvation. Scripture says so. The first Adam is connected to the second Adam.

      • Vince

        Agreed, but show me where you need to believe adam and eve were real people as I do to be saved. Can someone believe in evolution and be a Christian?

        • Digger

          This question is covered decently at Got Questions. You can easily find the site by searching those two words. Once there, type “How do beliefs about creation impact the rest of theology” into their search bar and the article will come right up. The article will do more justice to your question than I could in the space provided.

          • Vince

            What do you think? I understand what that article is saying that doctrine does not make sense without the Bible accounts being true. But does someone have to believe the earth was created in 6 24 hr days to be saved? I say no. What do you say? Can someone be a Christian and believe evolution? I say yes. What do you say?

          • Steve McKinney

            I say no to first question, and yes to the second.

          • Vince

            Can you support your answers?

          • Digger

            That’s a pretty deep question. You asked it two ways: 1. you asked does someone have to believe XYZ “to be saved”; 2. does someone have to believe XYZ “to be a Christian”? From these two different ways of asking, can I assume that you are saying that “to be a Christian” means that a person is actually save–i.e. has their name written in the Lamb’s Book of Life? I just want to be sure we are defining our terms the same way before I give an answer that might mean one thing to you and another thing to me.
            According to Jesus, many people who claim to be Christians are saved. Only a few actually are.
            If you mean to ask, do people have to believe that to have salvation, I have one answer, and if you mean to ask, do people have to believe that to call themselves a Christian, I have a different answer.

          • Vince

            I do mean salvation, an actual Christian. I believe being saved and being a Christian are the same thing. Anyone can call themselves a Christian but not all are Christians.

          • Digger

            This answer is based on my understanding of your question to be: “Can a person go to Heaven if they believe in evolution?”
            My short answer is, I don’t know. I’m tempted to say, yes, because I believed in evolution for many years until I studied geology, paleontology, and the Bible. Not only did I learn that the flood better explains the arrangement of fossils within the various layers of rock than does evolution, I also learned that the literal translation better fits with the entirely of scripture than does any other. (I would like to share my biggest issues with evolution here but there isn’t space to do so.) I also want to say, yes, because God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. God CAN save whomever He wants.
            However, I don’t think a person can continue to hold that postition and become mature in their faith.
            Here’s where I start to waiver. No person can rightly interpret scripture without the aid of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit ALWAYS interprets scripture the same way. God does not change. When a person is saved, they are radically changed, and will bear visible fruit in their lives. It isn’t the person who says, “Lord, Lord,” who is saved, but the person who DOES the will of the Father. A saved person WILL study the Bible intently–they will have an overwhelming desire to know God more fully. A saved person WILL pray. A saved person WILL take care of the needs of others. A lot of people talk a lot about the Bible but don’t really study it. A lot of people talk a lot about serving the poor, but don’t do so themselves.
            I believe a person who believes evolution CAN be saved, but in most cases, I doubt that they really are. That being said, it isn’t up to me. I treat them the same way in either case–with as much love as I can. I wish I had the space to give a more complete answer, for yours is a good question.

          • Vince

            So are you saying that if two people are actually saved that they will always interpret the same scripture the same way?

          • Digger

            No–I am not saying that. I am not saying that the moment a person is saved that person automatically knows scripture perfectly. That would rob the new convert of the relationship that is developed during a lifetime of reading and praying and contemplating God. I am saying that when two believers interpret scripture correctly, their interpretations will always be the same. There are never two correct interpretations that oppose each other.

          • Vince

            I agree.

          • ChiliPepper

            What does God say? In the scope of eternity, God’s Word in scripture has eternal relevance. Remember, Adam was not born but created good in full completion both physically, and spiritually. When he and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, mankind became mortal, dying over time, and spiritually dead. To be alive in Christ is to regain the Spirit of God only possible through the mercy and grace of of God Himself.
            What makes man think think that God did not create the universe in the fullness and maturity as He created Adam?
            If God is good, and is indeed the definition of good, the anything not of God is evil, God did not create evil, but it exists and is a result of Adam’s fall. Adam was created in the image of God, and had not sinned until he chose something other than God’s will. Thus, man is responsible, and God, to His Glory, has provided mercy and grace so that who He chooses might be saved. How does a Holy God get a fallen man into His Kingdom? Read the Bible to find ou.

          • Vince

            What does this have to do with my question? I agree with most of what you said. Tell me where in the Bible it adds you must believe rightly on creation to be saved. I believe in a 6 24 hour day creation but I am saved because I put my faith and trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of my sins and not the Genesis account.

            There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years; however, I believe it is young because that is what the Bible indicates by a plain reading of the text. I trust it is somehow reconciled by God.

        • Andrew Hollinger

          In order to get to Heaven and have eternal life we must trust God at his word, believe we are sinners desperate for a savior, and the Jesus was that savior that provided a way for us to be reunited with God eternally. We must trust him and make an effort to live for him, which means that we shouldn’t live in our sin but fight it. Yes we will fail, but we know we are forgiven through Christ as christians, so we can get up, brush ourselves off and continue on God’s path. You might think that believing Adam and Eve were real is trivial and unimportant in our faith and salvation, but doesn’t it come from the Bible? There is detailed account of Adam and his lineage. It is not just some story or parable that only stands for some meaning. If we don’t believe even just one part of the Bible then how can we say any of it is true, including the account of Jesus’ coming, his death, and his resurrection after 3 days? Believing the Bible acts the same way as keeping God’s laws. “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” James 2:10 (NIV) Therefore we must believe the Bible is all true in order to believe that the account of Jesus and his death and resurrection is true as well.

          • Vince

            I strongly disagree. Where in the bible does it say Christians have to keep the law to be saved or that believing the entire bible to be true is the same as keeping the law? This is adding a requirement to the gospel that is not there. When the first Christians believed and were saved the entire Bible was not written yet, so how could they have believed the entire Bible?

            I believe every word of the bible is true and that’s why I believe the gospel message excludes believing every word in the bible. Your theology here needs a definitive verse that plainly states you need to believe all of Gods word to be saved or you are adding to the gospel. Your theology here says that people that have never read the entire bible cannot be saved. This is untrue, the first Christians were saved because they believed the gospel from word of mouth and were saved. (Acts 2:37-41).

          • Vince

            I strongly disagree. I believe every word of the bible but that does not save me, repentance and my trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of my sins does. There are many verses that directly say this. Show me a definitive verse where it says every word has to be believed to be saved. I would assume you also would require the correct interpretation as well which is almost impossible to know. You are adding to the gospel. From your theology if you don’t believe that Uzal was a real person in Genesis 10:27 you will be damned to hell. Do you really believe that?

          • “You might think that believing Adam and Eve were real is trivial and unimportant in our faith and salvation, but doesn’t it come from the Bible?”
            YOu ask that as if the answer to the question: “doesn’t it come from the Bible?”, means it comes also through your selection of hermeneutical choices, and that is HOW it comes. That is a prejudgment which says “The Bible” and “MY understanding of it” are one and the same. That “Adam and Eve were real” as historical figures is NOT the story God wants us to take to heart. God wants the narrative to be taken to heart. God , and the ancient world, were not so enamored by “literal history” as we moderns are. What makes myth powerful is not its historicity, but its narrative meaning. Historicity has NOTHING to do with it. That’s where you seem completely stymied.

  • mark morrison

    Does evolution happen? Of course, with in the species. We are able to see the changes in finches but they are STILL finches. There are no transitional fossils and for evolution to be true there would have to be millions. Also Genesis was written in a historical context meaning it is to be taken literal. Did it really only take God 6 days to create the earth? Yes. Was Adam a real man made in the image of God? Yes. Did Noah really build an ark? Yes.

    • Digger

      I prefer to call what happens within the species adaptation, especially since that is what generally causes the small changes. The birds are adapting to one situation or another. Good post, though. I like it.

  • Good article. If we could take the Bible and apply it literally for every situation, now and for the end of time, there would be absolutely no need for the Holy Spirit to be our intercessor. The Bible is not a science textbook and was never meant to be one. It’s a book on faith, God, and our need for the gospel. Christians who can admire the beauty of scripture surely can imagine that God is not bound to our literal, human understanding of the creation story, written by men who, like us, are bound by ideas like time and space that mean nothing to God. To say with arrogance that you understand creation is, in my opinion, to reduce the power and wonder of God.

  • paulwareing

    Either the Bible is ‘truth’ or it is not. You cannot pick and choose without undermining the very foundation of your own Christian faith. If it’s not all true, which bits you prefer to believe and which bits someone else chooses to believe could be different and your core beliefs could be conflicted.
    I don’t think to say you believe in evolution is compatible with a faith that says that the fall of man through Adam is the reason Jesus Christ came into the earth as God incarnate to reconcile mankind with the creator.
    Sorry guys, you either believe in the faith our your fathers or you just kind of like the ‘Cut Jesus Jib’. Virgin birth, man becoming God? How is that less of a stretch than Creation?
    It does explain the demise of Christianity in the West when it’s adherents prove to be so completely gutless and lacking in conviction!

    • Digger

      Good job, Paul.

    • Beau Jackson

      You can believe that the words of the Bible were inspired by God, but that they were filtered through the minds of ancient men that did not have any understanding of science or of the direction that cultural morality would grow. In that sense, you can glean pearls of wisdom from the Bible without becoming bogged down in ancient doctrine that has no bearing on life in the 21st century.

      • Digger

        Do you mean to say that God’s inspired words mean nothing to us because OUR morals have changed? Man’s wisdom has trumped God’s wisdom?
        Was the dividing line the year 2000?
        By they way, ancient men got a lot of science right thousands of years before secualr scientists figured it out. Also, both testaments predicted with 100% accuracy the direction that cultural morality would grow.
        I admit that ancient doctrine has no bearing on how most people live today, but those people are on the road to destruction–they are not saved.

        • Beau Jackson

          I do believe that morality has evolved, and that is a good thing. We no longer treat women as property. We give them an equal voice to man. We no longer accept slavery in any form as acceptable. We no longer force daughters to marry their rapists. We no longer glorify men who commit genocide on entire peoples including pregnant women, small children, and the elderly as great men of God. I believe modern morality far outshines that of the ancients.

          • Brandan Robertson

            Great points Beau.

  • Conrad Martin

    My journey to a belief in a literal creation story began with the belief that God is an all powerful God and could have created the universe as recorded in the Bible, literally. Since he is all powerful, I had to deduce that if he could have created the universe in 6 days, maybe, just maybe he actually did. It just seemed to make more sense to me.

    • Digger

      well said.

  • jonathan starkey

    I’m probably a creative evolutionist, but I must also believe that God could have made Earth with age built in.

    Reading Genesis with the spirit and imagination, trumps any literal reading. It may not literal, but it is sooo fulll. And it’s true.

    • dawnonafarm

      Apparent age is the most perverted of all arguments. If God intends to trick us and fool us, than the the rest of the Bible is even more suspect. Age is there because it is old. I have never heard from a 6 day 24 hour creationist a actual logical explanation for how Cain went out to towns and villages. This is just glossed over because it doesn’t fit into their paradigm.

      • Jonathan Starkey

        It’s OK for you to not know something.

      • Tom Farrow

        Just wondering where you get that “Cain went out to towns and villages”. We don’t know how many children Adam and Eve had or if Able had children prior to his death or how old he or Cain were when that occurred. We don’t know how long Cain lived but Seth, a brother, lived 975 years. Gen 4:16 says Cain went to live in the land of Nod, east of Eden. No indication if the land was inhabited or not.

      • Digger

        Yes, I just re-read the entire Cain account in KJV and NIV and found nothing about him going out to towns and villages. If it isn’t in my Bible, it won’t fit into my paradigm.

        • Digger

          I wonder if dawnonafarm is using a search engine to get her theology? Joshua chapter 15 mentions the places where the tribes of Israel live, and it is given in “towns and villages” format. Around verse 57 or so is mention the town of Cain in a list of towns and villages of the area of Zior.
          When people who have not read the Bible try to use the Bible to defend their anti-Biblical postitions, they start stating their misbeliefs as facts.

          • Jonathan Starkey

            The worldly debate is needing proof or trying to prove something. Seeing is believing. This what I believe the Dr. in the video was saying. That debates aren’t helpful and is a sign of being worldly (secular).

            Isn’t that post enlightenment thinking?

          • Jonathan Starkey

            Were just trying to prove our own points. And bringing Augustine. The Bible isn’t meant to be used in this way. And our debates are backed by our own questions which bleed into our own confirming answers. So the question bled the answer. Therefore manmade.

  • Steve McKinney

    And, the Jesus I worship does not tell us to take ten percent of our gross income and give it to a local church, either. However, that teaching is exaggerated in many many congregations across the U.S. to keep doors open. Ken Ham represents more Christians’ beliefs than you realize sir. He does not say you must not believe in evolution to be saved. He never ever said that. He is giving an example of a Creation theory that he and many many others believe should be examined as another plausible theory being taught to children in school curriculum. He has no issues with evolution being taught as a theory to children, alongside other plausible theories such as Creationism.

  • Paul Petersen

    Neither school can be proven. Evolution is a theory, and honestly, it is a theory with plenty of holes in it. The new Earth model also can’t be proven, and it has a slew of holes in it as well, with all we know about light years, carbon dating, etc. Quite frankly, I am sick of evolutionists who insist that the THEORY be accepted as gospel. I’m also sick of new earth creationism that says “my way or the highway”.
    I don’t know how God created the Heavens and the Earth. But I am convinced that He did. I’m also convinced that He gave us a creation story that could be understood by a people who had no concept of “million”, so He couldn’t use the word “billion” in the account. It isn’t meant to be taken literally, yet it is meant to impart truth to us. That is the viewpoint that was missing from last night’s debate between two dogmatic, unyielding schools.

    • Beau Jackson

      I think you need to look up what the definition of a Scientific Theory is as compared to a common theory. Also, the evidence that backs up the scientific theory of evolution is mountainous. All of that evidence is what leads 98+% of the scientific community to support it. The purpose of science is to continue collecting evidence and facts. As long as those facts continue to agree a Scientific Theory stands. If any fact disagrees, then the theory is altered. Biblical creationists do not care about facts that disagree with the Bible. They do not alter their “theory” when faced with facts. The Bible says it; they believe it; end of story. That is where the true difference between these two types of theories exists.

  • Tom Farrow

    If a person is unable to believe in creation as told in Genesis, how does one choose what is and what is not to be believed in any other part of scripture?

    • Digger

      Nice, Tom. I’m happy for every voice that is willing to stick up for God; for everyone who refuses to allow God to be called a liar.

  • Josh

    Not once did Ken Ham say that in order for one to be saved they had to believe in creation over evolution. Nice straw man tactic, dude. However, it’s obvious you would rather believe man’s fallible religion, evolution, over God’s infallible, inerrant Word! Only you and God know where your relationship lies, so I cannot be judge of that, nor will I try, but you will cause a lot of people to stumble because of your view, which is absolutely heretical. I love you as a brother in Christ and urge you to think what a belief in evolution promotes. Life is no special, because death comes before sin, not because of it, as Romans 5:12 says. This gives rise to the acceptance of abortion. It also causes people to doubt the historical accuracy of the Bible. Moreover it causes some to doubt the immaculate conception, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which cannot be scientifically proven. Are you going to side with the atheists on that one? If you believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, then it should not be hard to believe that an infinite God could create in 6 days (why not 6 seconds?) as Exodus 20:11 reiterates! We use the Bible to look at the world, not the world to look at the Bible. The world will lie to you, for the world is of its father, the father of all lies. So if I can’t read Genesis as it’s meant to be taken, “naturally” as Ken Ham put it, then where do I start to read it as so? Who decides? You; a preacher; your neighbor; an atheist? If one is told that they cannot read the Bible at face value and that they have to be told what it means, the person who relays this information either a cult leader or in a cult and I would run, not walk, from that kind of controlling mentality.

    • Brandan Robertson

      Brother. I have a sincere question… can you read? I NEVER ONCE said Ken Ham said that in order to be saved you must believe in creation. Unfortunately, the hundreds of comments on this thread seem to suggest that many other so-called Christians do believe that.

      Also, you obviously know NOTHING about what heresy is or what defines orthodoxy. Evolution is not a heresy. Nor is denying inerrancy.(even though I didn’t do that.)

      If you really loved me, you would not come up here spreading all sorts of crazy lies about me. I have one word. Repent.

      Blessings brother.

      • Digger

        “Can you read?” “You know nothing…” “You need to repent” I don’t think you know the meaning of “blessings”. Is it merely a salutation to you? I am only suggesting that there may be instances in which you might forego its usage.

      • Josh

        It Is absolutely heretical as Genesis refutes evolution. If you see millions or billions of years In scripture It Is because you are adding to It what Is not there. Also, I have not spread lies about you. I replied to your article. I don’t have to be nice to you in order to love you. If I love you, I speak to you the truth. That’s all I did.

  • Person

    I go to Moody. Did you never go to class?!?!?!

    • Brandan Robertson

      Hey fellow student. I did go to class. And many of my profs have help me come to this conclusion. I suggest getting around more. Blessings.

      • Digger

        What does it mean, “Blessings” when preceded by an insult?

        • Brandan

          That’s not an insult. It is a sincere suggestion. There are many great professors that can help you think outside of the box on this issue, and so I suggest that my fellow student takes them. That’s all

  • Ros

    As far as I’m concerned, trusting that God made the universe (in seven days or seven billion years) is what is most important.

    I did like Mr. Ham’s references to the New Testament, however, and the way that he told thousands of people about Jesus and how loving and full of grace he is, and how he is a savior for ANYONE who comes to him.

    • 22044

      While bloggers and some of the commenters lob their sanctimonious and misguided cyberbombs, we can rejoice that Mr. Ham presented Jesus as you described. :)

  • Dan Perkins

    If the fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, then I think Brandan might need to spend some time becoming more like a little child. I have heard Ken Ham speak on these topics many times, and every time he has been very clear in stating that he doesn’t believe that this is a salvation issue. Putting words in his mouth are misleading at best… This blog drips with pride. If Brandon is going to take the national stage and speak for Christ, he might spend some time on the other half of the salvation formula, faith AND repentance. I’m sure that God loves Brandan’s zeal, but this type of thing grieves His heart.

    • Brandan Robertson

      I agree Dan. However, I never put words in his mouth. I only quoted what the man said. Thanks for your concern though, I do appreciate it.

  • Mark Munger

    If you are familiar with the rules of debate, it is each sides goal to strongly promote their position. I think too often we’ve gotten used to political debates where both sides tend to dance around the question. I do not fault Mr. Hamm for his performance, nor Mr. Nye. I think at the minimum it gave many people who listened and watched another opportunity to consider if we as humans have a “divine” nature as well as an “evolved” one.

    • Digger

      But do you understand what that would mean? That would mean that humans are images of God, but we weren’t always images of God; rather, we became that way through billions of years of random chance and mutations.
      I don’t say that as an attempt to disprove evolution, but I want everyone to consider how things must be if evolution is true. For example, if evolution is true, death has to have been around BILLIONS of years prior to man.
      In other words, sin did not cause death.

      • Mark Munger

        Did sin cause physical death or spiritual death?

        • Digger

          Sin caused both of those. Sin caused a separation from God, who is the sustainer of life as well as the giver of life. The literal translation of the idiom found in Gen 2:17 is, “By dying, you shall die.” Since Adam was separated from God due to his sin, God no longer was his sustainer, so his body began the slow but certain process of decay, and eventual failure.
          Likewise, God is the cause of both physical life and spiritual life.

          • Mark Munger

            Just wondering what if evolution is accurate and the death of the evolving creatures was only leading up to God’s ultimate creation and then God gave man the ability not given to the preceding creation …. The possibility of not dying?

          • Digger

            I suppose, but I am more comfortable with my interpretation because that is what scripture says. Not only Genesis, but Romans 5:12 and following, 1 Cor 15:21 and following; a lot of scripture has to be interpreted differently than the plain-language meaning if death was already here prior to sin.

          • Mark Munger

            I tend to agree with you on the Genesis account of creation and a relative young earth / 6 creation day event. Once again though one of the reasons I was drawn to the RLC site was to challenge my thinking and beliefs and be open to others who may view things differently for a variety of reasons. I find myself being extremely disappointed when people on this site decide to demonize or belittle others and their beliefs rather than saying “come now and let us resin together.”

          • Digger

            Also, in my studies (paleontology and geology) I have learned that–according to the theory of evolution, certain fossils are found in certain layers of rock because those layers of rocks have many millions of years separating them, and so the animals that the fossils came from lived many millions of years apart from one another. From all the fossils and all the rocks we find all over the world, we put to gether what is called the Geologic Column.

          • Digger

            One of the biggest problems evolution has is that nowhere in the world does the empirical data match the model! Every single geological and paleontological dig ever conducted refutes the theory of evolution. Do you get that? ALL DATA says no. Because of this, the model is tweaked. For each dig, a hypothesis is formed to explain the anomalies. For a thousand different digs, there can be a thousand different hypotheses. The Bible has one hypothesis that explains every anomaly–the flood.

  • Jonathan Starkey

    I think RLC should post more author videos. It was just really great to see Brandon’s face and hear his voice. Good job.

    • Brandan Robertson

      haha. Thanks John!

  • Bem1986

    Here is the problem with a Christian believing in Evolution. You are limiting a Almighty God and trying to fit Him into your box of what you know. He is NOT limited to your knowledge. If He is Omnipowerful then it IS NOT outside His ability to make a earth that has age on it. If you understand who God is and stop trying to limit what he can and cannot do and quit trying to explain His power using you extremely limited knowledge of anything, it is not hard to believe that HE created the world. Taking into account that Evolution CANNOT be proven it is merely a theory. There is absolutely no evidence of evolution occurring today. Why did the monkeys stop evolving??? Why are there not examples in todays world of evolution. You can believe man if you want while you say you are a Christian. Your faith looks small to me.

    • Beau Jackson

      Merely a theory… LOL! Yet another person who does not know what a Scientific Theory is. A Scientific Theory is built on PROOF! Please, read my post below. You are using theory in the common vernacular. The way non-scientist use “theory” is what scientists call a hypothesis. They are completely different things.

      • Digger

        No, Beau. Theory is not built on proof. Once a theory gets a single piece of proof, it becomes fact. What you should have said is “scientific theory is built on evidence.” There is a huge difference between evidence and proof.
        Proof is data that can reasonably only lead to one possible conclusion. Example: A peleontologist unearths a T-Rex cranium. This is proof that T-Rex used to exist.
        Evidence is data that can reasonably support more than one conclusion. Example: Mollusk fossils are found on top of the Earth’s mountain ranges. This is evidence that supports the theory of subduction and upheaval; and it is also evidence that supports the global flood account written in Genesis. Neither is sufficient to PROVE or disprove either theory.
        Evidence requires further data, proof stands alone. (Once something is proved, no further data is required.)

        • Beau Jackson

          There are no proofs in science! If you ever stop looking for new facts and evidence, then you are no longer doing science. The only proofs that exist are in mathematics and logic. There is a big difference between the Law of Gravity which is a proven mathematical formula and the Theory of Gravity: “Why/how does gravity work.” The law describes what effect gravity has on observable objects. The Theory of Gravity is built on evidence and facts, but it will never be proven. Scientists are more sure of the Scientific Theory of Evolution than they are of the Theory of Gravity because gravity is extremely weird. That is not how science works.

          • Digger

            First you say theory is based on proof, then you say there are NO proofs in science.
            I have a theory. Evidence is mounting. In fact, I think I’ve got all the proof I need.

    • Jackson

      Wow, the level of ignorance and misunderstanding in this post is astounding. First, there are heaps of evidence about evolution happening in real time (example: antibiotic-resistant bacteria). Second, who said monkeys stopped evolving or that anything stopped evolving? Third, NOTHING can be proven. Evolution cannot be proven any more than the existence of a god can be proven. But, you must accept God on faith and belief while you can accept evolution based on the observations through science. And how is evolution putting God into a “box”? Also, nobody is trying to “explain his power”.

      People, science looks to find answers to the questions about the mysteries and workings of the universe, the “How does it work?” questions. At no time does science attempt to answer the “Why?” questions. Ultimate cause does not come in to the picture, and that is where faith and belief take hold. It is not hard. Stop mixing science and religion, especially the misconception that science is intruding on religious territory. It is not.

  • wjgreen314

    Ken Ham speaks on behalf of God as all we like ambassadors of Christ do; not FOR you. But he does speak TO you and ME and everyone else. If we’re reasonably intelligent, NOT Intolerant, non-judgmental Christians we’ll listen to what he has to say, weigh it, compare and contrast it to Scripture, and then either fully embrace it or partially embrace it; we can’t completely reject what he has to say BECAUSE he spoke so eloquently from and about the Gospel and the generally accepted principle within Christendom that Science and Christianity are compatible and neither negates the other; so long as we distinguish between UNPROVEN scientific theory — some of which currently contradicts God’s Truths — and well established scientific theory that includes by definition a whole lotta uncertainty; in fact, they have a principle for uncertainty called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In addition, Science can still NOT answer . . .

    Where does Matter/Energy come from? Where does consciousness, our natural laws and the laws of logic come from? Why do you instinctively know that it is immoral and evil to kill someone, whether newly formed and gestating in utero or elderly and dying in a hospital bed? Why do you think you’re nothing more than an accident with no raison d’etre, no purpose and no eternity to look forward to — losing your consciousness after ~78 years you don’t know where in the first place derives from?

    You can’t answer the primary why questions and yet you hold to improbable mathematics that takes more faith than simply believing in an omnipotent God who does NOT act randomly but orderly, orders the universe and set in motions the laws of nature, logic and morality; imbued you with consciousness of His universe and the need for Him to sustain it.

  • wjgreen314

    Science utilizes Thought Experiments; one of the most famous of which is Schroedinger’s Cat (if you’re not familiar with it I urge you to Google it). Let’s engage in a thought experiment.

    Who Dunnit?

    A petite woman, about 5′ 2″ tall and 110 lbs enters the police precinct. She states she was blitz attacked from behind earlier in the night, a hood was pulled down and tied over her head, her hands were tied behind her back, she was dragged into a car, driven about 15 minutes away, and then vaginally sexually assaulted. Despite her struggles and resistance she confessed her body reacted against her wishes and she experienced two orgasms, about 4 minutes apart. She stated her rapist never said a word. She heard a car door open and close, then the trunk open and close, and then nothing. After she managed to free her hands she untied her hood and looked around; she noticed no one was in the car nor anywhere around it. She exited the car, ran and showed up at the nearest police station. She says she knows where the abandoned car is located.

    You and your partner detective go with her and find the abandoned car. You open it and check the VIN, it’s visible, and reveals the owner is Tommy Buford. You think, maybe we got our man. However, you keep looking and find a ripped open condom package; there’s a print on it and it traces back to Joey Pattone; hmmm. Continuing to search you find a used condom and a few days later you discover the DNA in it traces back to someone in CODIS: Todd Vlisack. Your partner checked the trunk and found a 6 inch rubber doggy bone; it looked like it had been wiped clean but a partial print revealed it was Joann Cain’s. Finally, you search under the back seat and find blood. A few days later you discover it’s female blood and again CODIS reveals its identity: Beverly LaGrange.

    Five pieces of evidence; each attached to a separate identity. The evidence is less than 72 hours old. You have no known addresses for any of the five persons of interest and so issue a worldwide BOLO. But it’s your job to solve this crime with your partner. Who did it? How? And Why?

    The next day you read about a newly found fossil that consists of a partial skull and a badly broken half-jaw bone lodged in rock carbon-dated to 50 million years ago while the skull itself carbon dates to 66 million years ago. Scientists tell you that after they compared it to the many other bone fragments they have that carbon date back from thousands to tens of millions of years it’s the missing link! And proves Godless evolution. Who was it? How did it get there? Why is it there? How do Scientists know for sure?

  • wjgreen314

    This article belies far too much ignorance of what Ken actually believes and presented during the debate. How many times did he showcase young earth believing Christian SCIENTISTS who have made enormous contributions to Science and to the world through the use of Science: including but not limited to the inventor of the MRI which has completely changed medicine for the better, Dr. Raymond Vahan Damadian, M.D.

    There are just so very many young earth Creationists with Masters, Ph.D.’s and M.D.’s who do great science and are treated by Ignorants as if they don’t exist and don’t count within the Scientific community.

    Christians generally need to pay far greater attention to FACTS in addition to the commandments, precepts, tenets, teachings, admonitions, and principles within the Bible; we’ll find they reinforce each other much better than many currently know about or acknowledge.

    Please see this long list of young earth Scientists and adjust your prose accordingly. Thank you.

    examiner dot com/ article/ growing-list-of-scientists-who-consider-young-earth-creationism-yec-a-fact-and-evolution-as-bunk

  • wjgreen314

    I pray that RLC begins to invite older, wiser and more experienced Christians with multi-disciplinary backgrounds to write and post here. Christians with Advanced Degrees and academic backgrounds and experience in SCIENCE, MEDICINE, ECONOMICS, THEOLOGY, POLITICAL SCIENCE, HISTORY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ETHICS, PASTORAL CARE, PSYCHOLOGY, etc.

    There are middle-aged Christians with academic credentials in two or more disciplines who could add tremendously to the scholarship, erudition, wisdom, understanding and insight of this blog, not yet proffered here.

    I volunteer: BA (Law), M.Div. (Missions), MBA (Economics), 7 years undergrad and graduate professorial experience, 5 years experience doing Job Creation in Bangladesh, extensive self-study in Political Science, the Constitution, Logic, Mathematics, and Creation Science.

    Please allow authors who can integrate several different disciplines from a highly informed and experienced Christian perspective. Thanks.

    • 22044

      I think there’s a way to publish an original piece on RLC, you would submit it to the editor and the editor approves it if he likes it.
      John Watson has shared a little bit about the process. He posts here as John.

      • wjgreen314

        Thank you.

    • Joe

      If you’re serious about volunteering, I would recommend contacting RLC through the “contact us” page, or the email address listed there.

      • wjgreen314

        Thanks.

      • Joe

        Wow… surprising how many downvotes one can get for simply directing someone to the “contact us” page…

        • wjgreen314

          The downvotes cast for behaving like Jesus, echoing His Words, extolling His virtues, speaking highly of elder stateswo/men in the faith, pointing out glaring errors in theology from poor exegesis, and calling for better IS disturbing at best; cause for grave concern at worst. Has God created a faux-army of Jesus naysayers? Or are these naysayers simply uninformed and ignorant of God’s Word Godless trolls — and I’m fine with trolls per se — seeking to poo-poo on God’s Truth in an effort to thwart the growth in holiness, righteousness, and obedience dispensed by Satan to the contemporary cyber-garden? One must prayerfully wonder.

        • 22044

          If it was my call, you’d get no down votes, at all. For what that’s worth. :)

          • 22044

            Or the others in the few comments in this part of the forum

          • Joe

            Eh, I’ve made comments where even I felt like the downvotes I got were justified. But for directing someone to the “contact us” page? That’s just confusing.

          • 22044

            Heh – I must not have seen those :)

          • Joe

            They might’ve been on a different site. I’ve made some attempts at humor that in retrospect were extremely poor taste, but I tend to be a bit more serious around here.

          • Digger

            Hatred. Can there really be ANY other explanation?

          • Joe

            Considering one of the downvotes appears to have vanished, it could’ve been a mistake that wasn’t noticed right away. Of course, that probably can’t explain all of them…

    • Brandan Robertson

      I seem to recall an Apostle saying something like “Do not look down on anyone because they are young.”

      I also urge you to look at the majority of the contributors to RLC. Much better educated and informed than even your credentials! Let’s not be hasty to judge, brother.

      • 22044

        As I pointed out to someone else, and I’m pretty sure this isn’t you, but a young person who quotes verses about young wise people comes off like an arrogant punk.
        But you’re better than that.

        • Joe

          Honest question, what’s a better response when someone belittles you just because you are younger than them? I would have assumed that turning to Scripture would at least be considered a good choice, if not the best choice.

          • 22044

            I guess I didn’t see a specific attempt to belittle, but let’s run with that.
            If a response isn’t requested, it’s OK to stay silent if you can handle that (you can turn to Scripture to find your assurance. After all, if you’re secure in Christ, what can man do to you?)
            If you have to respond, do so with grace and truth, after prayer, and do your best to let the offender save face.
            Admittedly easier said than done.

      • wjgreen314

        A truism that will always remain true is that no matter one’s age, no one knows what s/he doesn’t know. And the longer one lives, studies, experiences and digests the more one is able to know and understand, if s/he studies hours per day, 5-6 days a week for decades, always with Jesus in mind.

        My concern is not for your youthfulness but your youthful error of mostly criticizing your elder in the faith, who because he is NOT against Jesus is for Jesus, and thus with and for all of us. I did not read where you showed youthful deferential respect to your spiritual elder, who has walked with Jesus for decades, studied and knows His Word, and is better versed in science than most Christians, including you and me.

        I have no doubt there are people with earned doctorates who occasionally post here, including and especially Dr. Anthony Campolo, who is inter-disciplinary; but I have NOT discerned many others of late with or without doctorates who evidence acumen in two or more disciplines, including theology, who are able to analyze, synthesize, and critique ideas without attacking the ABSENT & UNABLE-TO-RESPOND proponent of those ideas, especially when s/he is an elder stateswo/man in the faith and evidences a deep and abiding love for God.

        It is one thing to seriously challenge an author of a piece posted here who has the option to reply and rebut; another thing to critique an ABSENT brother or sister who has no knowledge of the critique and therefore is likely not to respond in defense. I often adopt this mantle on behalf of the absent brother or sister in Christ.

        But while I proffer my credentials as above, knowing they are substantial and include degrees and coursework from some of the very finest Christian institutions of higher learning in America: Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Harvard Divinity, Eastern University, and professorial experience at Nyack Christian College, I am more than happy to count them as rubbish for the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, Ken Ham’s, and yours.

        One of the things I most regret about my lost youth is that far too frequently, youth is wasted upon the young. Let Christian young people not make this mistake. Xaris kai eiraynay humin.

  • Questioning

    In the Bible it is said, and I am paraphrasing here, that we ought to believe in God based on what we see in His creation, the beauty, complexity, and perfection of nature. I do not think it is necessary to have a literal belief in the creation story, nor do I believe it is necessary to believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture. We cannot know these things. On the contrary, I think it requires a greater faith to simply say, I don’t know but I am going to trust and believe anyway. Science ought to lead us to a greater faith. At the end of the day, I really don’t care how God created the earth, I just believe He did. As far as what Ken Ham is doing, I simply believe it is wrong headed. We cannot be Christians without faith. What Ken Ham is doing flies in the face of that. Why are we trying to prove what cannot be proven, especially when it only fosters argument and division.

    • wjgreen314

      Is Ken Ham WITH Jesus or AGAINST Him? If the former is he not also then WITH and FOR all of Jesus’ disciples in our efforts to make Christ known to an idolatrous, increasingly immoral, and profane world? What of the people Ken has seeded, another watered, and God gave the increase to? Are they any less Christ’s disciples because the seeds Ken planted were somehow deficient? The earth may be ONLY 6,000 years old — there’s evidence for this even if it does not amount to proof beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt. Evolutionists talk about natural laws just as Christians do; and yet, cosmologists theorize that AFTER the Big Bang when natural laws came into being one of the first acts of the universe was theoretically opposed to natural law — it “inflated” at a speed far faster than Einstein’s theoretical limit: the Speed of Light. It’s their only current explanation for how the universe got to be as it is currently observed; given that what we observe of the far reaches of the universe occurred as long ago as 13,300,000,000 years ago and we have ZERO idea what is going on out there and how it looks in the existential now.

      Christians can assent to the truth that there is evidence for a young earth AND an old earth without demeaning adherents of either view. A quick look at Ken’s website’s resources informs us that there are many men and women with Ph.D.’s and M.D.’s who believe in a young earth and do far greater science than the vast majority of us here.

      It would be wise to peruse Ken’s website and learn what it has to offer before much more criticism of the man, his faith, and his scientific viewpoint is is slapped on here here.

  • Reese Viola

    This is just a serious of “softening” the bible. Liberal Christians are so quick to make everything comply with the world. Matthew 10:22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved: One compromise after another. I’m waiting for RLC to post about how to make Christ less offensive to others soon…

    • Digger

      Amen Reese. Along with it is a lot of preaching and a little (or none) practicing. Many will SAY Lord, Lord, but only those who DO the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of Heaven.

    • JimB

      One of the most curious questions for those who hold to a “millions of years” age of the earth, and a preexistence of various life forms for millions of years before man, is that God’s word must be made false.

      The word clearly tells us that by one man, Adam, sin entered the world, and death entered by that sin.

      So, can one be saved and believe that Jesus was God the creator who lived as a man, suffered, died on a cross, shed his blood and gave his life for the sins of all men, and conquered death that entered the world through that sin, yet death happened before sin?

      If Adams sin did not bring death, then the Bible must be false. Either the entire testimony is true, or you must act as God and decide what is true, and what is false. How then can you trust the words recorded of Christ, or know for sure how to be saved, once you start to toss out the more difficult parts of Scripture in favor of your own intellect and reasoning.Then the account of Satan must be true, “Hath God said”.

      Listen to what the Word says. Sin is the root cause of death. Christ came to conquer death. If evolution is true, then the Bible must be a lie, and God and His account of creation, the flood, and judgement to come.

      And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

      And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

      ….And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

      Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

      Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Romans 5:12,14

      For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Rom 5:17

      If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1Co 15:19-22

      1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

      2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

      Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

  • Chuck M.

    All because I believe what the majority of people on planet earth do — that our beautiful planet is millions of years old and that all of life has common origins and undergoes a process of evolution that helps us to adapt, progress, and survive. Makes sense
    Brandon,
    The majority of people on planet earth are not Christian. So, that certainly makes sense.
    Moody??? Wow – how the mighty have fallen.

    • Brandan

      Since when does the view of one student represnt the view of an institution. I do not speak for nor represent Moody, so dont go about speaking about them. This article is MY views and mine alone.

  • joejmz

    Mr. Robertson, can you provide scientific support for your undeniable experience with Jesus?

  • JimB

    In 2 Peter, any who deny the creation, and the flood, are called scoffers. The word, according to Strong’s concordance, implies a false teacher. Read the passage for yourselves, and if you still deny the flood, the work of God in creation, and hold to evolution, or the basic belief that “all things continue as they were since the beginning of creation (big bang theory?), then it is not only Ken Ham that is not speaking for you, it is God and His Word that you deny as well.

    “2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there will come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
    2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
    2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
    2Pe 3:6 By which the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
    2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved to fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

    Just saying.

  • GormerPile

    The question of evolution is simple for determination of your version of Christianity. Do you have faith that God’s inspired Word is kept in the Bible or not? It is the only place which describes and reveals Christ. For evolution to be correct, God must be wrong and this is a requirement of evolutionists to be satisfied. A theory, created by man, intended to prove God wrong, and put man above God.

  • Andrew Hollinger

    I am sorry but you are either all in with God and the Bible, accepting it as TOTAL TRUTH, or you can’t believe any of it. If you have ever even looked at Genesis and read how God created the world and everything in it, it says that God created Adam and then Eve from Adam’s rib. He created animals on a totally separate day. We came from the dust and we will leave as dust. We did not “evolve” from animals! It clearly states that God created man, individually and separate! So how can you even start to profess that as a Christian you believe in both the Bible and evolution!? You are contradicting yourself, and leading others astray at the same time! I do agree that Ken Ham didn’t always have the best support for his arguments but just think…has there EVER been any proof of a change of “KIND” (frog to bird, dog to cat, etc)? You and evolutionists say that it happened, but we have no tangible proof. There has never been any observation of this change, so there is no support for the type of evolving that evolution is founded upon. Science does allow us to continue to discover the amazing intricacies of the earth and how God’s design is magnificent, but if you look at the standard, non-Christian scientists or sometimes even Christian scientists, what is their main goal? They just want to “know more” personally, because as humans we just want to know all the answers. But are we God? I ask you this…In the Garden of Eden Satan tempted Eve, and in turn Adam, saying that if they ate of the tree they would be like God and be all-knowing. That enticed them, did it not? But what happened when Adam and Eve did eat from the fruit? What happened when they tried to know everything and tried to be their own “god”?…You see, we aren’t supposed to know and understand everything, because if we did we wouldn’t need God. That is why we have to trust and believe Him that He is telling us the truth, that He knows what is best for us so that we may bring him glory, and above all that He is all-knowing. I am not trying to stifle further exploration or studies of the world, for we should continue to care and learn about God’s wondrous Creation, but we also need to be looking to Him and trusting in Him and aligning our thoughts and our beliefs with what the Bible states. Deviate just a little and you will cause confusion, doubt and separation. God does not bargain with us and we can’t pick and choose what we want to believe and say is true or not. So I warn you to be careful or you will not only lead yourself astray but also many, many followers of Christ. I leave you with a passage from Deutoronomy 29:29 which states that “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of his law (NIV).”

    • Digger

      I didn’t read your entire, long post–I stopped reading when you said God created animals “on an entirely separate day.”
      My Bible said that God created land animals and Adam and Eve on the exact same day–day six. Kindly give Genesis 1:23-31 a more careful read.

      • Andrew Hollinger

        sorry, yes correction that was a mistake! i meant to say that he created them separately, as in how man was created from the dust of the earth, clearly contradicting the thought that they evolved from animals

    • Andrew Hollinger

      sorry, yes CORRECTION that was a mistake! Thank you “Digger” for catching that!!! i meant to say that he created them separately, as in how man was created from the dust of the earth, clearly contradicting the thought that they evolved from animals!!!

      • Digger

        Yes, thank you! Whew! I also like it that God paraded all of the animals in front of Adam to show him that he was different than all of them (and NOT made in God’s image).

  • wjgreen314

    Fascinating Contrast between the pointed criticisms of BROTHER Ken Ham in this article with the cheerleading for Mr. Michael Sam, confessing sodomite.

    The church should indeed have faithful members within it examining the beliefs and actions of itself but when criticism for those who have professed their faith and allegiance to Christ rises well above those for someone extolling the virtues of his chosen sinful lifestyle, it’s time for serious, further self-examination and repentance.

    Why do we NOT have Ken’s Back and say “Michael Stam doesn’t speak for me!”?

  • David K

    interestingly enough Einstein when he developed the theory E=MC2. he also developed the time space continuum theory as well. The time space theory goes that the closer to the speed of light you go time slows down. Now when God says in the bible that he made the world in 6 days could it have something to do with the time space continuum. After all if the universe was made in a vacuum going 99.99% the speed of light then this could have been happening in what we would consider 1 day. After all if we go to Alpha Centari galaxy going at 99.9% the speed of light we would age only 1 or 2 days but in the reality of the people on earth they would have age over 1000 years. In fact if we went to Alpha Centari and back at 99.9% the speed of light we would age 2 day but all the people on earth that we knew would have died and the only progeny that would be left would be our great-great -great grandchildren. With God all things are possible. Don’t let time be your hangup. Theoretically if you look at the time space continuum the Creation story and evolution could coexist to a certain degree

    • Marco T Mckenna

      You nailed it broseph.

  • Marco T Mckenna

    I don’t believe that the pre-historic writings from an ancient tribe in Israel are scientific documents. They are a legendary and beautiful account of how God created a green earth out of the dark void and Chaos (the universe).
    This is not a salvation issue. We know that the light from stars in the universe is very far away. It must be old or else it is an optical illusion that God put there in the first place. God has truly ‘stretched out’ the heavens.

  • Tim W Callaway

    Faith is far more than mere belief(s).

  • Kerrie

    Robertson you are a heretic and the god you worship is not the God of the bible. It is NOT the view of most christians to believe as you do saying god is the creator of evolution. You have been brainwashed by the science world who in general don’t want to retain God in their minds. Six days means six days. You are limiting God if you can’t accept that. God could have created the world in six minutes if He wanted to but you would rather compromise with a warped evolutionary view. It’s time you repented and believe God’s word for what it says and stop leading people astray.

Read previous post:
Ken Ham v Bill Nye
Ken Ham v. Bill Nye: If Only Christians Were This Passionate About Helping the Poor…

FEB 4, 2014 | BY: STEPHEN MATTSON -- As you’ve probably already heard, churches all over the United States are...

Close