Interview with Mike Oard

Geology provides some very interesting data in regard to the age of the Earth. As long as evolution is the only game in town it supports long ages as evolution requires. Mike Oard is a weather man who is a young Earth creationist. He not only sees geology favoring a young Earth he provides observable evidence to support the young Earth conclusion.

In this video Mike discusses geologic layers, marine fossils and ice cores all of which support a young Earth.

Irreducible Complexity — Can Design be Falsified?

Irreducible Complexity
by Jim Bendewald

Can Design by an Intelligence be Falsified?

Evolutionists claim that Intelligent Design (ID) does not have hypotheses that are falsifiable. They then conclude that ID is pseudoscience. This is a very serious claim, and it is prolific in the pro-evolutionary media as a foundational argument against ID.

What is a falsifiable hypothesis? A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested. Falsifiable means that the explanation must be stated in such a way that it could be proven false. For example, someone might make the hypothesis that, “It never snows in July.” This statement can be proven false by evidence that it does snow in the southern hemisphere in July.

Does ID have falsifiable hypotheses? Yes, and they correspond to the evolutionary falsifiable hypotheses. For example, Charles Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Therefore, if it could be shown that an organism could not evolve by numerous, successive, slight modifications, it would reveal Darwin’s theory to be false. Note: Natural selection is an effective theory for explaining biological change within a kind; thus natural selection is not being challenged here. However, the following demonstrates that evolution theory is false.

Michael Behe, the author of Darwin’s Black Box, coined the term irreducible complexity. It describes systems which have no functional advantage unless several components are in place. Behe used the analogy of a mouse trap. In order for the mouse trap to catch mice it must have all five components: a platform, hammer, spring, sensitive catch and bar. Behe uses several biological examples including the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting and cilia for illustrating irreducibly complexity. Evolutionists go through extraordinary mental contortions in lengthy articles trying to explain away the problem of irreducibly complexity in these examples. They provide no empirical evidence to support their imaginative views, while leaving horrendous gaps along the way in their “just so” stories.

So, if in fact ID is just nonsense and does not provide falsifiable hypotheses, then why do evolutionists go through such extraordinary lengths trying to explain away examples of irreducibly complexity? The fact that they have lengthy articles designed to dispute irreducible complexity only demonstrates that it is falsifiable.

An irreducibly complex hypothesis can be stated falsifiable: “Are there irreducibly complex biological systems which would refute numerous-successive-slight-modifications evolution?” This is a testable hypothesis; evidence on both sides has been presented. It is incorrect to say that ID is pseudoscience and does not provide falsifiable hypotheses.

The cell is the ultimate example of irreducible complexity. My book Evolution Shot Full of Holes with co-author Frank Sherwin, contains a chapter on the topic of the origin of life. The cell is an interdependent functional city. We state, “The cell is the most detailed and concentrated organizational structure known to humanity. It is a lively microcosmic city, with factories for making building supplies, packaging centers for transporting the supplies, trucks that move the materials along highways, communication devices, hospitals for repairing injuries, a massive library of information, power stations providing usable energy, garbage removal, walls for protection and city gates for allowing certain materials to come and go from the cell.” The notion of the theoretical first cell arising by natural causes is a perfect example of irreducibly complexity. Life cannot exist without many numerous interdependent complex systems, each irreducibly complex on their own, working together to bring about a grand pageant for life to exist.

Copied from a previous Evidence Press post.

Georgia Purdom Discusses the Cell

Charles Darwin thought of cells as “simple”. With better microscopes and scientific experimentation we have come to see a whole world of complexity within the cell. The complex cell is in many ways like a city.

In this video, Jim Bendewald interviews Dr. Georgia Purdom on staff with Answers in Genesis.  The discussion includes a fascinating look at the various organelles and functions of the cell. In addition to the interview are wonderful illustrations using animated graphics. In this video you will see for yourself the immense complexity built into our cells. While evolution predicts simplicity and requires simplicity, the reality is the cells contain unfathomable complexity inferring design as the best explanation.

The Five-Levels-of-Information-in-DNA Argument

When I (Jim Bendewald) speak to people about why creation is true and evolution is not — I try to use the five-levels-of-information-in-DNA argument. I have seen people go from complete confidence in evolution to certain doubt in evolution within the few minutes of our discussion. This argument clearly has the potential to be a game changer.

Skeptics dismiss evidence against origin of life problems by saying that such evidence is not evolution, it’s origin of life. The five-levels-of-information-in-DNA argument is a slam dunk on why the origin of life by natural causes could never work. Hopefully, anyone watching this video will see that.

But the five-levels-of-information-in-DNA argument is just as powerful against the evolution of organisms as well. This video provides the concepts necessary to permanently dismiss evolution as a valid theory. For animals to evolve from one type of animal to another they must add volumes of information in DNA and they must do so with incredible detail. Watch the video to see if you agree evolution by natural causes is not logical in any amount of time.

Like this description of the video, (these very words) natural causes is just not the way information is formed.

Interview with Ken Ham on Old Earth

Ken Ham is the founder and president of Answers in Genesis based in Kentucky. Jim Bendewald (the director of Evidence Press, Inc.) had the privilege to interview Mr. Ham at the Creation Museum in September, 2013.

Unfortunately, an old Earth has become popular among many Christians. A very important question then is, why have so many Christians come to accept an old Earth view? Ken Ham provides answers to this question in the second half of the video.

In the first half of the video we learn about Mr. Ham’s upbringing and what brought him into the creation ministry. We also learn of his vision for the Creation Museum and the proposed building of Noah’s Ark.

Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation. There are several methods for interpreting the Bible but there are two main methods you should know about. (Scroll down to see more text after the video).

This first method of interpretation is the historical-grammatical method. It begins with the belief that the Bible is completely accurate and is God’s word from beginning to end. It strives to understand what the author intended to say. It is different from a “literal” view in that it considers not just the literal words but also the grammar, the style of writing, the type of literature, the context of the times and other factors. It strives to allow the passage to speak naturally, not forcing an outside bias such as — trying to make the text fit an old Earth view. A correct interpretation comes out of the passage by examining the scriptures exegetically.

The second method of interpretation is the critical-historical method. It treats the Bible as only accurate in the areas that can be verified through archaeology and extra biblical writings. Another word describing this method of interpretation is “eisegesis” which means to insert one’s own presuppositions and biases into the passage. Those who use the critical-historical method start from their presuppositions and biases believing the Bible is a collection of myths. Eisegesis is also used to make the Bible conform to an old Earth view.

Instead of trusting the evidence for when the books were written, the critical-historical method assumes much later dates. Likewise instead of accepting internal evidence for authorship the critics have assigned a series of unknown authors and a variety of editors to the books of the Bible. This method of higher critical interpretation is popular among secular academics who consider the Bible to be largely myth.

The starting point from which one studies the Bible makes dramatic differences in how it is interpreted and applied. However, consider this verse from Romans 1:25, For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. It is a problem to worship the creature or natural causes of creation instead of the Creator.

The problem with Christians believing in old-Earth creation is equivocation. Inconsistent methods of Bible interpretation are used by Christian leaders to present an old Earth view of Genesis 1-11. Many Christians are getting their ideas for how to reinterpret Genesis 1-11 from certain leaders such as Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. He has written several books which provide an eisegesis approach to understanding Genesis 1-11 as well as other passages in the Bible.

In the process of adapting these deceptive views of scripture his followers are mixing their methods of interpretation. For most of the Bible they agree with and use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation and complete their Bible study in an exegetical manner. But for Genesis 1-11 they switch to eisegesis by twisting the scriptures to mean something they were not intended. Watch the video with Ken Ham to hear his view.

It is very likely that the paragraphs above are fighting words for many readers. However, making people angry is not our goal. We at Evidence Press very strongly believe that God intends for us to interpret the scriptures consistently using exegetical methods – for all of scripture – not just the passages we agree with. In addition, we strongly believe that modern science supports creation and a young Earth. Go to the Videos menu to find strong evidence for creation and a young Earth directly from scientists with PhDs.

Dr. Russell Humphreys on Starlight and Time

Dr. Humphreys provides a fascinating cosmology for how stars could appear to Adam and Eve.

For biblical creationists this seems to be completely contrary to the Bible’s Young Earth perspective. Since some stars are billions of light years away, it seems foolish to believe that the universe is only 6.000 years old. This is a problem for biblical creationists and it is a huge public relations problem since it is easy for moderately educated people to understand the problem and what it means in regard to the age of the Universe.

In recent years creation cosmologists have been thinking about how to solve the problem. Several of them have come up with testable hypotheses. Dr. Humphreys has a scientifically realistic solution to the problem. His PhD is in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972. He has worked for General Electric and Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics.

Watch this video to learn about Einstein’s theory of relativity, atomic clocks, an event horizon, black holes and red shift. Through this interview you will learn how modern understanding of physics helps us understand that light from the stars was indeed available for Adam and Eve to see.

Dr. David Menton on the Wonders of the Body

Psalm 139:14 “I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.”

It was a great pleasure to talk with Dr. Menton. He taught histology and gross anatomy, so he knows a thing or two about the human body. Indeed we were “fearfully and wonderfully made”. This video includes several of Dr. Menton’s favorite examples of design.

I hope you are not too squeamish, there is some blood in this video.

1% Myth by Dr. Kevin Anderson

The DVD evidence that humans and chimp genomes are a mere 1-2% different has become an icon of evolution. All a supporter of evolution had to do is mention the 1% difference between humans and chimps to score major points in a debate. However, like Junk DNA, the simple cell and the universe is eternal — the 1% difference is being shown to be false.

In this video Dr. Kevin Anderson provides some background to the so-called 1% difference. He demonstrates the sort of evidence that was used to determine the 1% difference.



Interview with Dr. John Baumgardner

John Baumgardner PhD, is geophysicist. Dr. Baumgardner was employed at one of the most prestigious research institutes — Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New Mexico. He has developed a 3D computer program called TERRA which models Earth’s plate tectonics. This was such an important and useful program he was interviewed by US & World Report in 1997.

Those who support evolution depend on radiometric dating of rocks to provide evidence that the Earth is 6.4 billion years old. In this interview Jim Bendewald asks Dr. Baumgardner about radiometric dating and the RATE project. The discussion includes the RATE project results which challenge the long ages of Earth’s history. Carbon dating in coal is also discussed as well as carbon in diamonds which should long be gone if Earth is as old as the evolutionists claim.

This was an extremely important research project. It provided empirical data as evidence for a much younger Earth than evolutionists are willing to accept. Therein lies the problem. No matter how clear the data for disproving evolution, those committed to material causes will dismiss the evidence.

Watch this video to learn about the RATE project, understand what is at stake and learn of the RATE results.

Designed or Not Designed

Both “design” and “not design” exist. That is not debatable. So why is only “not design” taught in public schools? It is because policy makers and educators are committed to material causes that evolution alone is taught. By the way, saying they are committed to material causes is not judging their motives. This is their stated rational from a variety of sources.

Yes, natural selection happens; viruses, bacteria and species change, that is not in dispute. But to say that the common descent of humans from ape-like creatures is some sort of undisputed fact is a world gone mad. While changes within a species are obvious, just look at the varieties of dogs by artificial selection, the evidence for common descent from simpler species to more-complex species is vacant.

The evolution only dogmatism that promotes early-life-to-humans evolution (common descent) lacks scientific evidence, it’s illogical and it needs to be allowed to be challenged in the public schools! After all, modern scientific evidence shouts for design.

Click HERE for the download page. Then click on the Download button.