View the video and dialog here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBEwgdCHUWo
A viewer on YouTube feels that our video on Proteins requiring proteins is a God of the gaps argument and simplistic. I wrote back:
I think it is interesting that the USA secular educational system ignores the LAW of biogenesis (life only comes from life and is seen every day) and assumes abiogenesis which has never been observed.
So in our secular educational institutions the only possible cause for the origin of life is a natural cause. So no matter what the evidence, that evidence is made to fit the natural cause. So when you hint that “complexity” points to God as simplistic I will take that over the myopic view of secularists who force the evidence to fit their naturalistic cause (while not allowing a design cause in the door).
The viewer responded with Abiogenesis is new and science is about nature. He also challenged me to provide empirical evidence for creation. So I responded:
I appreciate your comments and questions. First, I deny that this is a God of the Gaps argument. It only is when design or God is not considered an option. If design is considered an option, then where does the evidence better lead, design or a natural cause? For me the clear answer is design.
You wrote, “Science is the study of nature.” That is true. However, the essence of science is the search for knowledge. There is nothing inherent in the study of science that mandates that the cause of a natural thing is a natural cause. That requirement is inserted by materialists who are unwilling to allow a level playing field to seekers of truth. Instead their way is indoctrination without consideration of design as a cause.
Your question is a good one. But as I answer it, what will you have to offer to show empirical, testable data that we are here as Darwin wrote, by “common descent with modification”? And do not give me the standard answer by changes observed in bacteria and viruses. The fact that organisms change fits the creation model as well. Rather, demonstrate bacteria evolving a functional organelle that prior bacteria did not have, or something of the kind.
I can offer several lines of evidence for creation. In doing so I am not trying to prove the existence of God, rather I am offering evidence that creation better fits the evidence than evolution by natural causes.
1. As the above video states, conundrums such as proteins requiring (maybe hundreds or even thousands of proteins) in order to create a protein. This is not simply a chicken or egg issue. We are talking multiple high tech nano machines, with communication, transportation, mechanics (folding of the protein) and who knows what all is going on in order to create a single protein. This is observed, it is repeatable and the best explanation is design not a natural cause.
2. The Law of Biogenesis. Life only comes from life. It is observed every day. Never has life been observed to come from natural causes even with the intense help of evolutionary scientists around the world trying to drum up evidence for it.
3. I don’t want to get into an argument about how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics being limited to closed systems and we are supposedly in an open system. So, let me refer simply to order instead. Again order is observed every day in a variety of locations and situations. Intelligent orderers are statistically observed (vastly more so) to be the cause of order than order from natural causes. I do not deny that order does at times come from natural causes. I am saying the vast majority of order coming from an intelligent source far exceeds order coming out of chaos.
I could go on to talk about predictions, information, the finely tuned universe and other sources of evidence such as genetic entropy (search YouTube for Dr. John Sanford). However, it is time for you to respond. I would like to see you provide two or three sources for empirical evidence for “common descent with modification”.
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.
While at the Farmers Market in Madison Wisconsin, Dr. Kevin Anderson, a biology professor at a state university, talks to brothers about truth is not determined by popular vote. Secular scientists are often wrong and they are definitely wrong about evolution by common descent.
Check out the video for more details about worldviews and what does matter.
On Saturday October 19, 2013, at the Farmers Market in Madison, Wisconsin Dr. Kevin Anderson, a biology professor at a state university, interviewed this student about science. The video reveals a discussion about the supposed fusion of two chromosomes making human chromosome 2 but what does the evidence show?
Despite what many people believe, observational science provides evidence for creation. A simple example is humans observe biogenesis (life only comes life) every day. Yet evolutionists assume abiogenesis (life originated from non-life) which is never observed. Even if someone supposes that abiogenesis was observed, it can not be repeated. Since biogenesis is the repeatable evidence shouldn’t it be taught in public schools instead of abiogenesis which is not observable?
Evidence Press is a ministry intending provide and promote evidence for creation. By producing video with excellent animations and graphics Evidence Press is communicating to the all viewers.
Many people think that evolution happens by way of physical accidents. For example, evolutionists will speculate — a bubble forms in the primordial soup making the first cell wall or mitochondria came about by one bacteria swallowing another. Admittedly my statements are simplistic and do not give justice to the evolutionary concepts for abiogenesis.
However, even if one of the above miracles did occur it would be useless without the many lines of code in the DNA for the organism to do it again. The real miracle needs to happen in the DNA. In order for the bubble to appear again or the mitochondria to exist again in the next cell there must be information for the new feature in the DNA. Replicating the DNA is essential. So first the instructions must exist in the DNA and secondly, the information must get carried on to the next generation in such a way that proteins are made to produce the bubble or mitochondria.
For secular scientists to advance this type of narrative is extremely disingenuous. They know it would not work but it is good enough for fooling students into believing such non-sense.
Review this video to see that information in DNA is key to understanding changes in biology. And the best explanation for the information in DNA is Design.