Posted by: BibleScienceGuy | April 16, 2014

Meet the Real Noah

Where can you meet the man who saved mankind from extinction — the man who stood alone against a debauched and vicious culture, who scrupulously carried out God’s instructions to preserve the human race amidst the catastrophic upheaval of a worldwide flood?

You can best meet him in Genesis 6-9, one of the most enthralling and iconic historical records possessed by mankind. It’s the eyewitness account of the world’s most famous sea-going mariner rescuing animals and his family of eight from a world-destroying flood in a massive ship.

Noah After the Flood

Noah After the Flood


 
Noah, the Movie is a comprehensive review of a new movie that focused fresh public attention on this man. To correct the movie’s severe distortion of the Genesis account, I followed with The Truth about Noah. I strongly encourage careful reading of the original source — the true record of Noah and the Flood in Genesis 6-9.

This blog post surveys some additional resources where you can meet Noah. These resources embrace the true historical account of Noah in Genesis and shed light on Noah, the Ark, and the Flood.

NoahBk

Noah: The Real Story

Noah: The Real Story by Larry Stone is filled with fascinating details and stories. It is an easily accessible book which answers basic questions about Noah, the Flood, and the Ark.

Topics covered in the book include:
1. The Genesis account of Noah
2. Flood stories from around the world
3. Was the Flood global or local?
4. How big was the Ark and how was it built?
5. How did Noah gather and care for the animals?
6. Searches for the Ark on Mount Ararat
7. Noah in movies and television
8. Where can you see the Ark today?

Noah and the Last Days

Ray Comfort, Founder and President of Living Waters, has produced Noah and the Last Days. This is a Noah documovie that was released on DVD and YouTube the same day as the Hollywood version reviewed above. His objective with Noah and the Last Days was to correct false understandings that Hollywood’s Noah movie generated through distorting the true Genesis account of Noah, the Flood, and the Ark.

Noah and the Last Days compares the present with the days of Noah. For the film Ray Comfort interviews people about their views of Noah and the Biblical signs of the end of the age. Here is his description of the film:

In the time of Noah, people were going about their daily lives, not mindful of the impending destruction. Like them, are we ignoring warnings of God’s coming judgment? The Bible gives us clear signs of the last days. Did you know the Scriptures say we will see:

• Flippant use of God’s name
• Money-hungry preachers and rampant hypocrisy in the church
• Wars and rumors of wars
• Denial of a global flood

But surely no educated person could believe that Noah and his ark ever really existed. Wouldn’t it be impossible to fit millions of species of animals into one boat? And what evidence is there for a worldwide catastrophic flood? However…what if it did all happen exactly as the Bible says? What would that mean? Who was Noah, and why is the amazing account of his life so relevant to you in the 21st century? Don’t be caught unaware. Time may be very short. Will you be ready?

Here is the full 30-minute Noah and the Last Days video:


 

Genesis Flood & Genesis Record

GenFloodBk

The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris is the book that kicked off the resurgence of Biblical Creationism. First published more than 50 years ago, it’s still the best book on Noah’s Flood, from scientific and Biblical perspectives.

The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings by Henry Morris is probably the best commentary available on the Noah chapters (6-9) of Genesis.

Ark Encounter & Creation Museum
Main portion of the Ark Encounter theme park

Ark Encounter theme park

A full-size all-wood replica of Noah’s Ark is being built in Kentucky. The Ark will demonstrate the feasibility of the construction of such a ship and its sufficient capacity to hold the required animals. It will be the main feature of the Ark Encounter theme park.

Answers in Genesis, an apologetics and worldview ministry specializing in the authority of the Bible and in Genesis-related issues, is building the Ark.

For more information on rebuilding the Ark, see these articles:
Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – How Big?
Rebuilding Noah’s Ark
Ark Encounter Park

This article answers many common questions about Noah’s Flood and the Ark:
Was There Really a Noah’s Ark & Flood?

AiG also operates the world-famous Creation Museum that opened in May 2007 southwest of Cincinnati. The museum has excellent exhibits on Noah, the Ark, and the Flood for both children and adults. I have visited the Creation Museum over a dozen times and highly recommend it. The Noah exhibits are my favorites.

Meet Noah

Questions to Ponder
  1. What words would you use to “paint a verbal picture” of Noah?
  2. Can you answer these questions? If not, consult the resources above.
    • How could Noah have built such a huge vessel?
    • How could Noah fit all the animals on the Ark?
    • How did he care for them?
    • From where did the flood waters come? Where did they go?
    • How could such a large wooden ship survive the storm stresses?
    • Is there any existing evidence of a worldwide flood?
  3. These questions can be used to engage people about Noah, with or without watching the movie. Direct people to the true account of Noah and the Flood in Genesis 6-9. Share your thoughts on these questions in the comments below. It could encourage or help another reader.

Soli Deo Gloria.

See these related articles I’ve written on Noah, the Ark, and the Flood:
Noah’s Flood—Key to the Past
Noah’s Flood—A Global Event
Noah’s Ark Replicas
Noah’s Ark Found?
Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanoes, & Noah’s Flood
Rebuilding Noah’s Ark
Ark Encounter Park
Noah’s Ark Model in Holland
Noah’s Ark
Noah’s Ark Found?
(with video)
1. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Intro
2. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Kentucky Governor
(with YouTube videos)
3. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – How Big?
4. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Ark Encounter video
5. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Ark Encounter Park
6. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Location
(with maps)
7. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Funding
8. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Facing Opposition
9. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Ham Debates Lynn
(with video)
10. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – What Would Noah Think?
11. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Tour the Dutch Ark
(with video)
Dinosaurs on the Ark?
Tsunami Videos and Noah’s Flood
Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanoes, & Noah’s Flood
USA TODAY features Noah’s Ark
Marilyn Monroe and the Age of the Earth
Wallenda, Niagara, & Noah’s Flood
(with video)
Mystery of Noah’s Flood (with videos)
Leftover from Noah’s Flood?
The Truth about Noah

Bible-Science Guy logo

Subscribe – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the
Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive
new posts free by email. Click
SUBSCRIBE NOW!

©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:4)
Wednesday April 16, 2014 A.D.

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. And the rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. On the very same day Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark, they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds. So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life. And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the LORD closed it behind him. Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days; and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. And the water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the surface of the water. And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. And the water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days. (Genesis 7:11-24)

Posted by: BibleScienceGuy | April 9, 2014

The Truth about Noah

Where can you read a jaw-dropping account of the end of the world as man knew it at the time? Genesis 6-9 is one of the most enthralling and iconic historical records possessed by mankind. It’s the eyewitness account of the world’s most famous ocean-going mariner rescuing animals and his family of eight from a world-destroying flood in a massive ship.

Cartoon based on Noah movie scene

(Based on scene where Noah nearly murders two baby girls, claiming it is God’s will.)

The recently released movie Noah focused fresh public attention on this account of Noah and the Flood. My previous blog post, Noah, the Movie, discussed Nine Positives and Nine Negatives about it. I rated the movie only 2 stars out of 5, due primarily to its severe distortion of the Genesis account.

Bible Reading Increases

Nevertheless, a huge benefit of the movie is that it is driving people to read Genesis. BibleGateway reported a 223% increase in those reading the Noah chapters on their site during the three-day opening weekend for Noah, compared with the preceding weekend.

The YouVersion Bible app reported a 300% increase in the number of people reading or listening to the Biblical account of Noah during the opening weekend with 389,794 readers or listeners. It’s the largest number accessing the Noah chapters that YouVersion has ever experienced.

An online survey by the American Bible Society is showing that well over 80% of respondents say they are reading the account of Noah in Genesis because of the film.

Many more people are reading from print Bibles, offline sources, or websites besides the three reporting above. The movie is clearly generating a flood of Bible readers.

The Truth about Noah from Genesis

I urge you to read the original source — the true record of Noah and the Flood in Genesis 6-9. This historical account records the following basic facts:

Yahweh determined to destroy mankind because “the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” But Noah was a “righteous, blameless man who walked with God and found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

God gave Noah specific instructions for building an Ark in which to save his family and animal kinds, for He was “bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.” The Ark was to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high with three decks. It was to be made with rooms and pitched inside and out.

Noah did as the Lord commanded him and entered the Ark along with his wife and his sons Japheth, Shem, and Ham and their three wives. The Lord brought to the Ark a male and female pair of every unclean kind of animal, and 7 pairs of clean animals and birds.

A common criticism of the Genesis Flood account is that it would be impossible for the Ark to hold two animals of every species. However, only two of every kind was required, not two of every species. For example, only two dogs were needed, not two dogs of every species. Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe reports in Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study that about 16,000 animals would have been sufficient to preserve the created kinds of air-breathing birds and land animals (including dinosaurs-probably young ones) that God brought to the Ark. The capacity of the Ark was equivalent to that of 522 standard railroad boxcars. Figuring that the average animal size was that of a sheep and that a boxcar holds 240 sheep, just 85 of the 522 boxcars would hold over 20,000 animals with plenty of room left for Noah’s family and storage.

Recently physics graduate students at the University of Leicester showed that Noah’s ark would have floated with all the animals on board. Using the dimensions given in Genesis and applying Archimedes’ Principle, they showed that the buoyancy force of the Ark would have easily supported the weight of all the animals. The students said, “Our conclusions were that the ark would support the weight of 2.15 million sheep without sinking and that should be enough to support all of the species that were around at the time.”
(From Hurrah! The animals could have floated two by two according to physicists, University of Leicester press release, April 3, 2014.)

Listening to Genesis 6-9

Listening to Genesis 6-9

And the Lord Himself shut the door when all were inside.

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. And the rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

The waters of the flood covered the entire earth, “so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered,” rising to more than 20 feet above the tops of the highest mountains. “The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

Genesis is quite explicit about the global nature of God’s judgment on the earth:
All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

After 40 days of torrential rain, God closed “the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky” and the flood waters gradually subsided.

In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. And the water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

After 40 more days Noah sent out birds over the course of several weeks, conducting four test flights to evaluate the condition of the earth. Finally, in Noah’s six hundred and first year, in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry, and God told Noah to leave the ark. They had lived in the Ark for one year and 10 days.

All left the Ark, and Noah sacrificed burnt offerings from the clean animals and clean birds. The LORD responded by promising, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

He instructed Noah and his sons, “Be fruitful and multiply; populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.” God gave man permission to eat meat and instituted capital punishment at this time.

God promised, “All flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth. This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth.

Whenever we see a rainbow, it is a reminder of Noah’s Flood and God’s promise that “never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh.

The following article answers many common questions about Noah’s Flood and the Ark:
Was There Really a Noah’s Ark & Flood?

Vital Warning

Why is the account of Noah important? Jesus used it to warn of what things will be like at His return to earth:

For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days which were before the Flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the Flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. … Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. … For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.” (Matthew 24:37-39, 42, 44; cf. Luke 17:26-27)

The days of Noah were a time of great wickedness and complacency, according to the Genesis account and Jesus’ words in Matthew and Luke. People took no heed of Noah, the preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5). Except for Noah, everybody ignored the signs of impending judgment. Is that similar to what’s going on today? Are proclaimers of repentance and righteousness being ignored? Are the Scriptural signs of the last days being neglecteded? Are we ignoring Biblical warnings of judgment?

May God use the Noah movie to awaken America to Biblical truth, repentance, and righteousness!!!

See my next blog post, Meet the Real Noah, for resources that support the true historical account in Genesis of Noah, the Ark, and the Flood.

Questions to Ponder
  1. How long has it been since you read Genesis 6-9?
  2. What words would you use to “paint a verbal picture” of the real Noah?
  3. Will you be caught unaware by Jesus’ return? Will you be ready? Time may be short.
  4. These questions can be used to engage people about Noah, with or without watching the movie. Direct people to the true account of Noah and the Flood in Genesis 6-9. Share your thoughts on these questions in the comments below. It could encourage or help another reader.

Soli Deo Gloria.

See these related articles I’ve written on Noah’s Flood or Noah’s Ark:
Noah’s Flood—Key to the Past
Noah’s Flood—A Global Event
Noah’s Ark Replicas
Noah’s Ark Found?
Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanoes, & Noah’s Flood
Rebuilding Noah’s Ark
Ark Encounter Park
Noah’s Ark Model in Holland
Noah’s Ark
Noah’s Ark Found?
(with video)
1. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Intro
2. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Kentucky Governor
(with YouTube videos)
3. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – How Big?
4. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Ark Encounter video
5. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Ark Encounter Park
6. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Location
(with maps)
7. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Funding
8. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Facing Opposition
9. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Ham Debates Lynn
(with video)
10. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – What Would Noah Think?
11. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Tour the Dutch Ark
(with video)
Dinosaurs on the Ark?
Tsunami Videos and Noah’s Flood
Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanoes, & Noah’s Flood
USA TODAY features Noah’s Ark
Marilyn Monroe and the Age of the Earth
Wallenda, Niagara, & Noah’s Flood
(with video)
Mystery of Noah’s Flood (with videos)
Leftover from Noah’s Flood?

Bible-Science Guy logo

Subscribe – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the
Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive
new posts free by email. Click
SUBSCRIBE NOW!

©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:4)
Wednesday April 9, 2014 A.D.

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. And the rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. On the very same day Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark, they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds. So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life. And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the LORD closed it behind him. Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days; and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. And the water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the surface of the water. And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. And the water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days. (Genesis 7:11-24)

Posted by: BibleScienceGuy | April 2, 2014

Noah, the Movie

Noah Poster

What do I think about the movie Noah?
It is like Longfellow’s verse:
When it was good, it was very, very good. But when it was bad, it was horrid.

The account of Noah’s Flood in
Genesis 6-9 is one of the most enthralling and iconic historical records possessed by mankind.

It’s the account of the end of the world as man knew it at the time. The world’s most famous ocean-going mariner rescued animals and his family of eight from a world-destroying flood in a massive ship.

The historical account in Genesis is reflected in the oral traditions and histories of hundreds of people groups all over the world.

Why is Noah’s Flood still of interest and significance 4500 years after it happened?

Noah’s Flood is the pivotal geological event of all time because it utterly transformed the globe. Mountains, ravines, ocean basins, and continents probably all date from the time of the Flood—they were either formed by or drastically altered by the Flood. Most fossils were probably deposited by the Flood.

The Apostle Peter declared the Flood destroyed the world (2 Peter 3:6). The Flood caused geological damage to the earth that defies imagination. Turbulent Flood waters caused massive erosion worldwide. Churning sediments were hydraulically sorted and settled in layers, solidifying during the following decades. Geological adjustments continued for centuries after the Flood. The oceanic, atmospheric, and geologic upheavals of Noah’s Flood exceed man’s capacity to comprehend.

But people still doubt the Biblical account. More controversy, acrimony, and ridicule swirl around the Genesis record of Noah’s Flood than any other Biblical account. Yet the Apostle Peter, the author of Hebrews, and Jesus Himself believed in Noah and the Flood (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:6; Hebrews 11:7; Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27).

The 2014 movie Noah draws the public eye anew to the account of Noah and the Flood. It’s a disaster movie like no other — almost the entire human race is destroyed. It’s a spell-binding adventure movie. It’s full of intense emotion and human drama. As far as gripping entertainment goes, the movie will not disappoint.

It’s good that Hollywood has focused attention on Noah. However, this movie Noah is not a Biblically faithful visual retelling of the Genesis account of Noah, son of Lamech. Rather it is an fanciful adventure movie inspired by the account of Noah in the Bible.

This distinction between an accurate Biblical representation of Noah and an imaginative story seeded by the Biblical Noah was acknowledged by Darren Aronofsky, the movie’s director, when he said,

“Noah is the least biblical biblical film ever made.”

Released March 28, 2014 by Paramount Pictures, Noah stars Oscar winners Russell Crowe as Noah and Jennifer Connelly as Mrs. Noah. Oscar winner Anthony Hopkins is marvelous as Noah’s grandfather Methuselah.

In the Bible, Noah’s wife is not named, but several names for her are given in extra-Biblical sources. The apocryphal Book of Jubilees (Chap 4) says Noah married his cousin Emzara, the daughter of Noah’s father’s brother Rake’el.

But the movie calls Mrs. Noah, Naameh, from Midrash Rabbah Genesis 23:4. Biblical Naamah was the daughter of Lamech (son of Methushael) and Zillah and sister of Tubal-cain. Tubal-cain forged bronze and iron tools and was the seventh generation after Adam through Cain (Genesis 4:19,22). Noah was the 9th generation after Adam through Seth, Adam’s son and Cain’s younger brother (Genesis 5:3-29).

In the movie, Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) is Noah’s enemy and the movie’s “bad guy.” Scripture does not rule out this imaginative thread. However, the Bible does not record any interaction between Tubal-cain son of Lamech from the line of Cain and Noah son of Lamech from the line of Seth. (These are two different men named Lamech.)

Here is the official movie trailer:


 
I saw the movie the opening weekend and was displeased with its portrayal of Noah’s life and times. The many Biblical inaccuracies, including a very distorted depiction of the Biblical Noah, detract from the movie. Here are positive and negative aspects of Noah the movie.

Positives about Noah the Movie
  1. It’s good that Hollywood is using Biblical accounts as the basis for movies. The major elements of the Genesis record of Noah and the Flood are dramatically portrayed, although it is not a Biblically accurate retelling. The movie reflects the depravity of mankind and God’s judgment of humanity’s wickedness by a worldwide flood. It shows the ark as the means of rescue for animals and Noah’s family who will repopulate the earth. Noah depicts the major Biblical themes of sin, judgment, and salvation.
     
  2. In the movie God communicates to Noah through fragmentary visions which he struggles to understand, instead of directly by the spoken word as Genesis reports. Noah sets a good example of seeking counsel from his elders by asking his grandfather Methuselah for help interpreting his dream about a flood. Despite struggling to understand God’s message, Noah acts in faith and obeys. It’s a connection for many today who struggle to understand God’s will for their lives and obey when it is unpopular or costly.
     
  3. The movie depicts the wickedness of mankind in Noah’s day, personifying it in the villain Tubal-cain who leads a mob against Noah and the Ark. Though the Bible does not mention a specific antagonist, Noah surely faced strong opposition. Genesis reports “that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…the earth was filled with violence.” (Genesis 6:5,11) This evil is graphically depicted in the movie; its portrayal of the pervasive degradation and violence of Noah’s day is accurate and effective.
     
  4. The movie depicts the power of hope, faith, and love.
    Director Darren Aronofsky said,

    “At the very core of the film is this family drama. It’s about a mother and a father who are living in a very difficult time. They have to navigate their children through that and hopefully, find a better place and a better beginning for them. There’s faith, there’s hope, and there’s also takeaway about being a good, loving parent.”

    Associate producer Cale Boyter said,

    “The message of mercy and the power of God’s love is dramatized in this movie so beautifully. And I’d never thought about Noah’s story that way.”

  5. The movie Noah has some awesome scenes that facilitate imagination of what Noah’s times and the Flood were like. The movie’s visual effects company Industrial Light and Magic said that Noah required the most complex rendering they’d ever attempted. The scenes of the Ark construction and the Flood are stunning and impressive.
     
    The movie’s ark is a huge vessel, built to the scale the Bible reports. Two non-seaworthy full-size arks were built for the movie: one on a soundstage in Brooklyn, NY, and the other in the water of Oyster Bay, Long Island, NY. The latter was in the path of Hurricane Sandy and experienced local flooding and wind gusts over 60 mph.
     
    The film showed the arduous and uncomfortable process of heating pitch and applying the sticky black mess to the Ark. This essential feature of God’s instruction is usually omitted by even the most reverent retellings.
     
    The movie is faithful to the Biblical text in showing the animals coming to the Ark without Noah having to round them up. God told Noah, “Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind shall come to you to keep them alive.” (Genesis 6:20)
     
    The Flood is awesomely depicted as the worldwide storm of all storms with no survivors outside the Ark, as Genesis records. The movie showed not only rain as the source of the Flood but also water bursting forth from the earth in accord with “the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.” (Genesis 7:11) The picture of humanity’s last survivors clinging desperately to a rocky isle till it is overwhelmed by the Flood will sear itself in viewers’ memories, along with the echo of their desperate wailing shrieks of terror and pain.
     
    The movie scenes can enhance the reading and understanding of Genesis just as pictures always help elucidate text.
     
  6. The quality of the production, special effects, and acting is excellent. The story line moves along briskly and is engaging.
     
  7. Christians can use the movie to generate discussions about spiritual themes. For example, the message of judgment for sin is a major Biblical theme of the movie which can lead to discussion of rescue from judgment through Jesus Christ for anyone who senses his own moral failures (sin).
     
  8. God the Creator: the movie never uses the term “God”. Instead it uses Creator. I like this very much because it identifies who God is and why He has a claim on our lives. With so many confused notions of “God” today, we should introduce God to people as The Creator, the One who made the universe, so they will be clear about Whom we are speaking.
    (See God’s Business Card and Creation: Foundation for the Gospel.)
     
  9. Fill the Earth: the movie ends with the Creator instructing Noah, “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” (Genesis 9:1) This was a refreshing contrast to today’s emphasis on limiting the earth’s population. It’s a reminder that the Creator intended man to fill the earth, which hasn’t yet been accomplished since the Flood.

Here is a second trailer for the movie, introduced by Emma Watson. She plays Ila, Noah’s adopted daughter, a non-Biblical character invented for the movie.

 

Negatives about Noah the Movie

The movie tries to re-invent the Biblical Noah. It includes many imaginative and unscriptural additions to the Biblical record of Noah and the Flood. Some might be considered artistic license, but others are quite disturbing and directly contrary to the Biblical record. Here are the main Biblical errors I noticed while watching the movie:

  1. The movie opens with this single line on the screen:

    “In the beginning, there was nothing.”

    This is false. It begins the movie with a blatant statement of the atheistic worldview. If there were nothing in the beginning, then there would still be nothing now. The movie would never have been made, and you would not be reading this review.
    From nothing, nothing comes.

    The Bible, on the other hand, begins with

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

    Yahweh the Creator was there at the beginning, and He is the ultimate source of everything else that exists.

  2. Noah – The character of the man Noah as portrayed in the movie is not consistent with the Biblical record. Genesis describes Noah as a man who “found favor in the eyes of the LORD” and as “a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.” (Genesis 6:8-9) The New Testament book of Hebrews reports: “By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.” (Hebrews 11:7) The Apostle Peter describes Noah as a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5). In speaking to Ezekiel, the Lord mentions Noah as one of three men in history renowned for righteousness, along with Job and Daniel (Ezekiel 14:12-20).
     
    Yet the movie depicts Noah as a dark malevolent figure who thinks the human race should not survive because of its evil. Noah thinks the point of his family’s existence is to build the Ark to save the “innocent” animals. Noah repeatedly tells his family that they are the last generation and are not to reproduce. In an extended scene, intense and disturbing, the movie shows Noah determined to murder his infant twin granddaughters to prevent the continuation of the human race. He eventually changes his mind, but later he rues not killing the babies.
     
    This is not the picture of the righteous, blameless Noah of the Bible. The movie’s representation of Noah is a serious fault with the movie.
     
    Russell Crowe, the actor playing Noah, says this about the movie’s portrayal of Noah:

    “The funny thing with people, they consider Noah to be a benevolent figure because he looked after the animals: ‘Awww, Noah. Noah and the animals.’ It’s like, are you kidding me? This is the dude that stood by and watched the entire population of the planet perish. He’s not benevolent. He’s not even nice. At one point in the story his son says, ‘I thought you were chosen because you were good?’ And he goes, ‘I was chosen because I can get the job done, mate.’ … I think they’re going to be quite surprised what Noah actually means; what it means to be in that position.”
    (From Russell Crowe: People Will be Surprised by ‘Noah’)

    Crowe is correct about the movie Noah. However, the Biblical Noah was NOT chosen because he could get the job done, but rather because of his character. And Scripture records Noah scrupulously, meticulously carrying out God’s detailed commands.

    Christians, Jews, and Muslims will not recognize Noah of the movie as the Noah of Scripture. When a movie is named for a character in the Bible, the movie should accurately depict the Biblical character. Distressingly, the movie Noah fails to do that.

  3. Evolutionism – When Noah relates to his family how creation occurred, he gives an account that is a merger of the Biblical creation account and the theory of evolution. While Noah’s voice gives a verbal account of the Six Creation Days from Genesis 1, visual scenes show a single-cell morphing into two cells and then into sea creatures. Fish grow feet and walk onto the land as amphibians. Primitive creatures morph over and over into more advanced creatures leading to an ape swinging through vines. The ape leaps into a clearing, the screen flashes bright and fades, and then Adam and Eve appear clothed in light.
     
    This portrays Noah as presenting a version of theistic evolution. >:( Yet Genesis 1 reports Yahweh created animal kinds from scratch in two regular days, not over eons through evolution. Later the movie shows men hunting a “lizard-dog,” an obvious attempt to legitimize a “missing link” or “transitional form” which has never existed.
     
    In the movie, Noah’s description of Creation places the sun and moon before the appearance of dry land. This contradicts Genesis 1 which reports the appearance of dry land on Day 3 and the creation of the sun and moon on Day 4.
     
  4. Environmentalism – The cause of Yahweh’s Flood judgment of the earth was that the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. … Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. (Genesis 6:5,11-12) Yet the movie focuses on environmental abuse (through mining and industrialization) and killing animals (hunting and eating) as the distinctive causes of the Flood.
     
    Director Aronofsky sees Noah as the “first environmentalist”, and Noah in the movie sees his main task as saving the animal kingdom. Instead of cooperating with God to save humanity, Noah is shown actively seeking to ensure its extinction. Concerning the screenplay for Noah, Director Aronofsky said in a 2008 interview with movie critic Peter Sciretta,

    “I think it’s really timely because it’s about environmental apocalypse which is the biggest theme, for me, right now for what’s going on on this planet. So I think it’s got these big, big themes that connect with us. Noah was the first environmentalist.”

    The movie shows the earth as a desolate wasteland prior to the Flood. I think this is highly unlikely. The tremendous deposits of coal and oil worldwide suggest the earth was a lush and verdant paradise before the Flood. Coal and oil are the remains of the pre-Flood vegetation that covered the earth.

  5. Missed Boat cartoon

  6. Angelology – The Watchers in the movie are fallen angels who have been exiled from heaven to earth and imprisoned in massive rock-encrusted bodies. Each rock-giant has four arms and stomps around clumsily. In the film, they help build the Ark and defend it against Tubal-cain’s army. When they are “killed” in battle, they ascend to heaven. There’s no indication in Genesis of such creatures helping Noah. This idea was stimulated by “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6:4)
     
  7. Magic – Noah’s grandfather Methuselah seems to be a kind of sorcerer. With magic he puts Noah’s son Shem to sleep instantly and later heals Ila instantly. He gives Noah a magic seed which when planted erupts into a fountain of water which spreads and sprouts an instant forest to supply building materials for the Ark. Flowers instantly grow and blossom from water drops.
     
  8. Yahweh instructed Noah to take two of every kind of animal on the Ark (Genesis 6:19-20; 7:14-15). Yet moviegoers gasp and shudder when scores of snakes slither toward the Ark. Two of every Biblical kind was needed, not two of every variety and species.
     
    I did not see dinosaurs entering the Ark in the movie, even though they would have been on Noah’s Ark in obedience to God’s command.
     
    In the movie, the heavy rains of the Flood started before Noah entered the Ark. In Genesis, the 40 days of Flood rains started after all had entered the Ark and God Himself had shut the door. (Genesis 7:4-17)
     
  9. Noah’s family on the Ark actually consisted of Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives for a total of eight (Genesis 7:13). In the movie, Noah’s sons Japheth and Ham do not have wives on the Ark. The film’s Noah dismisses wives as unnecessary and endorses the expectation that mankind will die out. Ila, Noah’s adopted daughter in the movie, is Shem’s wife. She bears twin girls on the Ark, so in the movie two more exit the Ark than originally entered. This is contrary to Genesis.
     
    In Genesis, Ham is Noah’s youngest son (Genesis 9:24). In the movie, Japheth is the youngest and Ham is the middle son. Japheth is the one who sends out birds for the Ark in the movie instead of Noah. Shem is shown as a teen or young man at the time of the Flood, but according to the Bible, Shem was 98 years old when the Flood came (Genesis 11:10). Noah had his first son at age 500 and the Flood came at age 600, so the eldest son was age 100 at the Flood. This was Japheth, the elder brother of Shem (Genesis 10:21). The birth order of Noah’s sons in Genesis is Japheth, Shem, Ham. In the movie it is Shem, Ham, Japheth.
     
    Noah was 595 years old when his father Lamech died at age 777, five years before the Flood (Genesis 5:30; 7:11). However, the movie incorrectly shows Lamech dying when Noah was around 10 years old. In truth, Lamech may very well have been a significant help in the construction of the Ark prior to his death.
     
  10. Tubal-cain‘s army attacks and tries to destroy the Ark. But Scripture portrays the people of Noah’s day as oblivious, indifferent to the project and the message of impending doom. “For as in those days before the Flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the Flood came and took them all away.” (Matthew 24:38-39)
     
    Scripture is clear that God actively supervised which creatures entered the ark and He Himself shut the door; by divine management only Noah’s family was permitted. In the movie Tubal-cain furtively chops his way into the Ark and stows away, eating some hibernating animals raw to survive. He persuades Ham to lure Noah to his hideaway as revenge for not getting to bring a wife on the Ark. Tubal-cain tries to murder Noah, but Ham changes his mind and helps Noah kill Tubal-cain.
     
    Tubal-cain implores the Creator to speak to him, His image-bearer, but he hears nothing. This fabrication contains serious error, for the Bible assures that the Lord hears when we call to Him, that He is not unresponsive to a man who seeks Him. (Romans 10:12-13) Those who died in the Flood were spiritually antagonistic to the Creator.
     
    Interestingly, the movie puts some foundational true theology into the mouth of the movie’s villain. Tubal-cain says that man was made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals and the earth. He hunts animals for food and believes in private property rights. Eating meat is portrayed in the movie as the most disgusting and barbaric of acts, which it was before the Flood. Man was only given permission to eat meat after the Flood (Genesis 9:3-4).
     
    Was it by intent that religiously and politically conservative positions were ascribed to the movie’s bad guy?
Evaluation & Recommendation

Noah has powerful visual effects that show the mammoth Ark and the Flood. But the Flood scenes are quite brief, and the Ark scenes show what seems to be a ramshackle structure. Many of the interior Ark scenes are too dark to see the intricate interior organization the Ark must have had. So the visual effects, while interesting, are not in themselves justification for seeing the movie.

20140328-DisclosureFail

A potential side benefit of Noah doing well as a movie is that more Biblical epics will make their way to the screen. This will provide more opportunities to talk about Bible truth with unbelievers and doubters. On the other hand, this movie ruins for decades the chance of making a truly outstanding epic Noah movie.

Noah will be the subject of numerous casual conversations at work, home, and play. The movie is opening serious public discussion about a Biblical account that is often ridiculed and disbelieved. Christians need to be ready to participate in the conversation with Biblical truth, whether one sees the movie or not. Use Noah as an opportunity to engage in meaningful conversation with unbelievers. The movie can naturally lead to deep conversations about God’s holy standard and the plan of salvation by drawing the Scriptural parallel to the “Ark of Jesus” that rescues men from sin. That’s a blessing Hollywood did not intend.

Here are some questions that believers can use (with or without watching the movie) to engage people about Noah. Direct people to the true account of Noah and the Flood in Genesis 6-9:

  • What kind of man was the Noah of the movie? How does he compare with the Noah of Genesis?
  • How did Noah know what the Creator wanted him to do?
  • What was the reason for the Flood in the movie?
  • What was Noah’s goal in building the Ark?
  • What about the evil we see around us today?
  • Will we have another apocalypse? Will it be like the one in Noah’s day, or will it be different?

To prevent the movie’s imaginative additions and historical errors from infecting one’s mind, I encourage the careful reading of the true record of Noah and the Flood in Genesis 6-9 both before and after seeing the movie. I urge families to discuss the discrepancies with Scripture.

There is a danger in watching this movie that false ideas about Noah and the Flood will stick in people’s minds due to the engaging visual presentation. And errors which are so powerfully visualized tend to stick in people’s minds better than the accurate history of Scripture. That’s why I think it’s especially important to review the true historical account in Genesis 6-9 both before and after watching the movie. Dig into the true story of Noah recorded in Genesis 6-9 and inculcate its truth.

So what’s the bottom line? Do I recommend the movie or not?

I certainly do not recommend the movie for children under 12. Some very disturbing scenes in the movie may traumatize children. The movie shows graphic evil and violence, including hand-to-hand fighting and killing and the trampling of a girl to death. It shows people swept away by the Flood, and those in the Ark hear the screams of the dying. Noah’s sudden change to irrational cruelty, and his near-murder in the movie of his two infant granddaughters is quite distressing. An adult who attended with me found the film extremely upsetting, and I know several who walked out of the movie.

My bottom line is that I do not recommend this movie, because I think its negatives significantly outweigh its positives. I give Noah 2 stars out of 5.

Read the Book. Skip the movie.

See my next blog post for The Truth about Noah.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Read my other movie reviews:
The Genesis Code (with video)
Marilyn Monroe and the Age of the Earth
Mystery of Noah’s Flood (with videos)
God’s Not Dead, the Movie (with videos)

See these related articles I’ve written on Noah’s Flood and/or Noah’s Ark:
Noah’s Flood—Key to the Past
Noah’s Flood—A Global Event
Noah’s Ark Replicas
Noah’s Ark Found?
Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanoes, & Noah’s Flood
Rebuilding Noah’s Ark
Ark Encounter Park
Noah’s Ark Model in Holland
Noah’s Ark
Noah’s Ark Found?
(with video)
1. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Intro
2. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Kentucky Governor
(with YouTube videos)
3. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – How Big?
4. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Ark Encounter video
5. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Ark Encounter Park
6. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Location
(with maps)
7. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Funding
8. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Facing Opposition
9. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Ham Debates Lynn
(with video)
10. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – What Would Noah Think?
11. Rebuilding Noah’s Ark – Tour the Dutch Ark
(with video)
Dinosaurs on the Ark?
Tsunami Videos and Noah’s Flood
Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanoes, & Noah’s Flood
USA TODAY features Noah’s Ark
Marilyn Monroe and the Age of the Earth
Wallenda, Niagara, & Noah’s Flood
(with video)
Mystery of Noah’s Flood (with videos)
Leftover from Noah’s Flood?
The Truth about Noah

Bible-Science Guy logo

Subscribe – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the
Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive
new posts free by email. Click
SUBSCRIBE NOW!

©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:4)
Wednesday April 2, 2014 A.D.

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. And the rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. On the very same day Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark, they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds. So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life. And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the LORD closed it behind him. Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days; and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. And the water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the surface of the water. And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. And the water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days. (Genesis 7:11-24)

Posted by: BibleScienceGuy | March 26, 2014

God’s Not Dead, the Movie

God's Not Dead Poster

  • Have you ever felt compelled to go along with the group even though your own view was the opposite?
  • Have you ever faced a college professor who was hostile to your faith?
  • Have you ever been threatened with failure in a class because of your Christian beliefs?
  • Have you ever been the only person taking a stand on something?
  • Have you ever been forced to sign something contrary to your beliefs?
  • Has a spouse or boy/girlfriend ever pressured you to change your beliefs?
  • Have your choices to follow Christ ever alienated you from family members?

These and similar issues fuel the intriguing story lines in the new movie God’s Not Dead. It opened in theaters across the USA on Friday March 21.

Despite its limited opening in only 780 theaters, God’s Not Dead from Pure Flix Entertainment made the top four in box office results. With $9.2 million on its opening weekend, the movie stunned Hollywood with how well it performed against films released in four times as many theaters. (See U.S. Movie Box Office Grosses for March 21-23.)

The movie treats the most important question in life: Does God exist? It’s about a young man who must either stand up or back down when his faith in God is challenged.

Synopsis of the Movie

God’s Not Dead is the story of college freshman Josh Wheaton (Shane Harper) who is spurred to defend his faith when bullied by his atheist philosophy professor. Professor Jeffrey Radisson (Kevin Sorbo) is an aggressive hard-core atheist who requires students to affirm that God is dead. Wheaton refuses and Radisson threatens to fail him. Later he asserts he will prevent Wheaton from getting into law school.

Radisson challenges Josh to prove God’s existence with intellectual arguments based on well-researched evidence and to engage Radisson in head-to-head debate in front of the class. If Josh fails to convince his classmates of God’s existence, he will fail the course.

Independent Thinking

Complicating the situation, Josh’s fiancée (Cassidy Gifford) pressures him to comply with the professor by signing a “God is dead” paper in order not to jeopardize their future. Furthermore, it develops that the professor’s girlfriend Mena (Cory Oliver) is a Christian. At the same time, a Muslim student converts to Christianity; her irate father throws her out of the house.

Willie and Korie Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame are ambush-interviewed on their way into church by an anti-hunting reporter. Willie’s replies to her questions are articulate and humorous.

Part of a Newsboys concert filmed in Houston plays a key part in the movie’s climax. Newsboys is a Christian pop rock band from Australia.

- Can Josh convince his philosophy class that God exists?
- How does Josh handle the fear and loneliness that comes with standing alone?
- How does the strained relationship with his fiancée work out?
- Can Mena escape Professor Radisson’s clutches?
- Can the converted Muslim girl survive rejection by her family?
- Can the reporter handle being stricken with cancer and getting dumped by her boyfriend?
- Does pain and suffering disprove the existence of a loving God?
These and other conflicts maintain a high level of drama throughout the movie.

Here are two official movie trailers:


 

Evaluation

God’s Not Dead is a Christian movie and an evangelistic movie, but it’s very absorbing and entertaining and provides much food for thought.

The movie includes arguments for the existence of God and references numerous atheistic philosophers and scientists like Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, David Hume, Ayn Rand, Sigmund Freud, Stephen Hawking, and Richard Dawkins. This may be a little difficult for those unfamiliar with the material, but it is authentic to the college experience. It also connects with the message of the movie — Christian students and professors on college campuses across the country are being persecuted for their faith. In fact, 37 recent court cases on academic discrimination against Christianity are listed in the credits at the end of the movie. Josh Wheaton is a hero in standing up for his Christian beliefs.

Like Josh Wheaton, Christian students and professors at public tax-funded colleges and universities face threats, hostility, and unconstitutional restrictions on religious freedom. For details on the 37 cases listed at the end of the movie, click 37 Related Cases.

The Alliance Defending Freedom has prepared a free handbook to inform students and professors of constitutional free speech and religious freedom rights. Know what is, and what isn’t, protected free speech. Download the free Student Rights Handbook at the bottom of the linked page.

Arguments for the existence of God presented in the movie include:

  • Since the universe had a beginning (as scientists now admit), there must be a Cause (Creator). This was in opposition to the professor’s assertion via Hawking that the universe is self-designing.
  • Morality requires a moral Lawgiver (God). Wheaton addresses the Problem of Evil.

Disappointingly, Wheaton uses the Big Bang and theistic evolution as explanations for the origin of the universe and the development of life, contrary to the clear teaching of Genesis 1. He even tries to use these as evidence for God’s existence. This is a weakness of the movie and a potential stumbling block for viewers.
(See The Big Bang! for scientific and Biblical reasons why the Big Bang theory is wrong. For a critique of theistic evolution, see The Trouble with Theistic Evolution.)

Josh should have emphasized the Argument from Design. The design evidence for God is glaringly obvious wherever you look. The many examples of complex design we daily see around us in nature provide strong evidence for a Creator. This “design implies a designer” argument appears frequently in the Bible. See for example Romans 1:18-23.

I think the hallway confrontation between Radisson and Wheaton should have been placed after Wheaton’s second classroom presentation instead of after the first. Nothing in the first talk would have raised the professor’s ire; in fact, it appears that the professor bests Wheaton using a quote from Hawking. However, in the second session, Wheaton turns the Professor’s endorsement of Hawking against him and wins a major point.

One intriguing scene is when Wheaton aggressively attacks Radisson’s stance on God’s existence in the third debate. He goads the professor into saying that, yes, he hates God. The scene is reminiscent of the climax of the movie A Few Good Men when the young lawyer badgers the colonel on the witness stand till he admits ordering the fatal Code Red. After the professor’s admission, Wheaton nails him with, “You can’t hate someone who doesn’t exist.”

Radisson knew God existed all the time. He was not a genuine atheist. He was a rebellious sinner who refused to acknowledge God’s sovereignty over His creation. He had rejected God because of his mother’s suffering and death. His problem with God was not intellectual but moral and spiritual, just as it is for most people. As the Apostle Paul says, there are no true atheists: That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20)

The break-up scene between the reporter and her selfish businessman boyfriend was not well-done. It was too abrupt.

Many “Christian” movies are a bit embarrassing because of mediocre acting or weak directing or poor production. But this movie did well in these areas. Kevin Sorbo as Professor Radisson turned in the best acting performance of the movie.

I found the many different story lines to be a little distracting or confusing. I would have preferred fewer story lines with deeper development for each and with more intersections between them. Some of the situations seemed contrived, and the ending is a bit corny and pollyannish.

Recommendations

I watched the movie in a large theater which was essentially full. Five times during the course of the movie the spectators broke into vigorous applause. Movieguide’s review gave God’s Not Dead 4 out of 4 stars.

I enjoyed the movie. Parts are enlightening, and Josh Wheaton’s heart for defending his faith, though at times misguided, is inspiring. Despite some big bang and theistic evolution nonsense, I still think there’s a lot of benefit that can be gained from the movie. I give God’s Not Dead 3 stars out of 4 and a strong positive recommendation.

God's Not Dead Book

For a deeper dive into the issues and arguments presented in the movie, read Dr. Rice Broocks’ introductory apologetics book
God’s Not Dead: Evidence for God in an Age of Uncertainty (Thomas Nelson, March 2013). Broocks gives nine proofs of God’s existence with a clear, understandable overview of the evidence and direct answers to skeptics’ claims. For a sample of the book, read the first chapter here: God’s Not Dead Chapter 1.

Here is an interesting interview (15:47) of actor Kevin Sorbo (plays Professor Radisson) by author Rice Broocks.

Questions to Ponder
  1. How would you counsel someone like Josh who came to you for advice?
  2. Is there a difference between taking a stand against friends and taking a stand against an authority figure?
  3. If you were in Josh’s place, what would you have done, and why?
  4. Have you ever been pressured to abandon something important by a confidant, as Josh was by his fiancée? How did it feel? Why do close relationships carry so much weight when expressing opinions and advice?
  5. Willie Robertson quotes Matthew 10:32-33 about acknowledging Jesus publicly. What makes it easy or difficult to acknowledge God in public?
  6. Share your thoughts on these questions in the comments below. It could encourage or help another reader.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Read my other movie reviews:
The Genesis Code (with video)
Marilyn Monroe and the Age of the Earth
Mystery of Noah’s Flood (with videos)

Bible-Science Guy logo

Subscribe – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the
Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive
new posts free by email. Click
SUBSCRIBE NOW!

©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:4)
Wednesday March 26, 2014 A.D.

“For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:38)
“Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32-33)

Complex designs require a Designer to produce them. This is the Argument from Design, a powerful argument for the existence of God that has convinced countless people throughout history. It is also used throughout the Bible.

Evolutionists promote the view that scientists support Evolutionism and reject evidence for design. But this is false. Many eminent scientists accept the Argument from Design. This article and its prequels/sequels present quotations from a number of prominent scientists who have been convinced by the Argument from Design.

Carson Book

Dr. Benjamin S. Carson

Professor Emeritus of Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Ben Carson (1951– ) is a distinguished scientist who rejects evolution and believes in creation.

The previous article on Carson surveyed his scientific credentials and awards and discussed his views on the 1. Complex Design exhibited by the brain, by cells, and by living organisms. This second article looks at what Carson says about

2. Fossils

Evolutionists almost always point to fossils as supposedly definitive evidence for evolution. However, in the Gallagher interview Carson dismantled the common claim that “fossils prove evolution.”

“Even if you accept evolutionary theory–developing a more sophisticated organism in this theoretically “logical” fashion, then there should be a continuum of organisms. And why did evolution divert in so many directions–birds, fish, elephants, apes, humans–if there is some force evolving to the maximum? Why isn’t everything a human–a superior human? Darwin specifically stated that his theory hung on the discovery of intermediate forms, and was sure that we would find them. More than a hundred years later we still haven’t found them. Even the earliest fossils don’t show such intermediates.

Take the simple case of ape to human. It should be easy to find abundant fossil remains since, according to evolutionary theory, this is the most recent transition. If we can find so many fossils of dinosaurs, which are further back in the evolutionary scheme, we should have plenty of evidence of intermediates between apes and humans. But we don’t have them. We have very few supposed intermediates–like “Lucy,” based on fanciful reconstruction with a lot of filling in. Today we have people with significant congenital abnormalities whose skeletal remains would seem like a missing link. So “Lucy” does not make the case, and there should be multiple “Lucys” if the transition from ape to human were true.”
(From “Evolution? No. I don’t have enough faith. A conversation with Dr. Ben Carson,” interview by Jonathan Gallagher in the Adventist Review, February 26, 2004.)

People swallow “Fossils prove evolution” without evaluating the specifics. Here Carson directly challenges that claim by pointing out that the fossil record actually contradicts the theory of macro-evolution.

If evolutionism were true, transitional fossils should totally dominate and overwhelm the fossil record. Additionally, the vast majority of living forms today would be intermediates, evolving from one stage to another. Yet today’s forms are essentially indistinguishable from the oldest fossils supposedly millions of years old. If evolutionism were true, there would be no question as to the validity of the evolutionary hypothesis. The evidence would be plain before us every day. The lack of evidence is conclusive.

It’s not a question of just finding a “missing link.” Evolutionists have to find trillions of “missing links.”

And they don’t have enough “time” in which to fit all the missing intermediate forms. Earth and life are only 6,000 years old.

But even with the supposed evolutionary age of the earth of 4.5 billion years, that is far too short a time period for trillions upon trillions upon trillions of distinct intermediate organisms to evolve leading up to all present day life forms. Even if you assume a hyper-conservative value of one trillion transitional forms would be sufficient to develop all life from molecules, 4.5 billion years is not enough time. It would require about 4 successful transitional forms to emerge per week! At this rate it should be easy to see them in the fossil record and see them emerging in the present. But they are completely absent.

The abrupt appearance of organisms in the fossil record without intermediates is exactly what one would expect to find if plants and animals were created. However, it is contrary to what one would expect if the hypothesis of evolution were true.

In Carson’s own book, Take the Risk (pictured at top), he explicitly says there’s no fossil evidence for evolution, even after 150 years of searching for it since Darwin.

“It’s just not there. But when you bring that up to the proponents of Darwinism, the best explanation they can come up with is “Well…uh…it’s lost!” … I find it requires too much faith for me to believe that explanation given all the fossils we have found without any fossilized evidence of the direct, step-by-step evolutionary progression from simple to complex organisms or from one species to another species. Shrugging and saying, “Well, it was mysteriously lost, and we’ll probably never find it,” doesn’t seem like a particularly satisfying, objective, or scientific response.”
(From Carson, Take the Risk, Zondervan, 2008, p.130.)

One kind of animal never evolved into another kind of animal. Yahweh created distinct kinds of animals and provided for continuation of life through reproduction “according to kind” (Genesis 1:24). “After their kind” is repeated 10 times in Genesis 1 for emphasis. Kinds don’t transition into other kinds.

There is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record because evolution of one kind into another kind never happened.

Dr. Ben Carson is a world-renowned neurosurgeon who has advanced medicine in many fundamental ways. He is someone who “understands science,” as his dozens of honorary doctorates and tremendous achievements in medicine demonstrate. Yet he vigorously and rigorously disputes evolutionism. He says there is no evidence of one kind of life ever changing into another kind.

The next article will discuss what Carson says about
3. Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution.

Questions to Ponder
  1. If the fossil record actually fits the Creation model of origins better than the Evolution model, why do scientists keep citing the fossil record as evidence for evolution?
  2. If the evolution of one kind of life into another kind has never been observed in life or in fossils, shouldn’t the theory of evolution be considered an unscientific theory since the scientific method requires observation, repeatable results, and testing?
  3. Share your thoughts on these questions in the comments below. It could encourage or help another reader.

Soli Deo Gloria.

This is the 31st article in the Evidence for God series that discusses the question,
“Is There Evidence for God?”
Read the prequels:
1. Evidence for God – Can You Answer a 6th-Grader?
2. Evidence for God – Design
3. Evidence for God – Experience
4. Evidence for God – Can You Prove God Exists?
5. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – Simple
6. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – Logical
7. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – Biblical
8. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – Old Testament
9. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – New Testament
10. Evidence for God – Stephen King & the Argument from Design
11. Evidence for God – Astronomy Quiz
12. Evidence for God – Astronomy Quiz Answers 1
13. Evidence for God – Astronomy Quiz Answers 2
14. Evidence for God – Astronomy Quiz Answers 3
15. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 1 – Ben Franklin
16. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 2 – Isaac Newton
17. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 3 – Johann Kepler
18. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 4 – Robert Boyle
19. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 5 – Albert Einstein
20. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 6 – Fred Hoyle
21. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 7 – Harold Urey
22. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 8 – Charles Townes
23. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 9 – A. E. Wilder-Smith
24. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 10 – Robert Millikan
25. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 11 – Rick Smalley
26. Evidence for God – Paul Walker & the Argument from Design
27. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 12 – John Eccles
28. Evidence for God – Polls Say People Don’t Believe in Evolution
29. Evidence for God – Why Don’t People Believe in Evolution?
30. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 13 – Ben Carson 1

Read the sequel:
32. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 15 – Ben Carson 3coming soon

Bible-Science Guy logo

Subscribe – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the
Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive
new posts free by email. Click
SUBSCRIBE NOW!

©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:4)
Wednesday March 19, 2014 A.D.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (Romans 1:18-23)

Posted by: BibleScienceGuy | March 12, 2014

Apostle Paul Trumps Beyoncé

Paul_Preaching_in_Athens

The Apostle Paul Preaching in Athens

In Athens, a center of modern thinking, Paul pointedly introduced Yahweh as the God Who made the world and all things in it, Who gives to all life and breath, and Who made from one man all mankind. (Acts 17:24-26)

Why are the 2,000-year-old letters of the Apostle Paul still of intense interest today?

A Harvard University online course,
Early Christianity: The Letters of Paul, has attracted 22,000 students from 180 countries.

The course professor told The Huffington Post,

“The day the course launched was astonishing—like drinking from a fire hose. The edX discussion threads couldn’t handle the amount of people who were commenting, and crashed and slowed down. More people participated on Poetry Genius that day than ever before—the Apostle Paul beat out Beyoncé!
(Poetry Genius is the interactive online discussion forum edX uses for students and instructor to communicate about course topics.)

The Letters of Paul course opened online in January through edX, a Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) platform founded by Harvard and M.I.T. in 2012. EdX offers interactive online classes from many of the world’s best universities in biology, business, chemistry, computer science, economics, finance, electronics, engineering, food and nutrition, history, humanities, law, literature, mathematics, medicine, music, philosophy, physics, science, and statistics. Enrollment is free.

“Letters of Paul” Course

The course explores the context of Paul’s Epistles in the Roman Empire as well as the significance and impact of these documents today.

The Letters of Paul course instructor is Laura Nasrallah, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School. Nasrallah does not have a Biblically sound view of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. In response to the Massachusetts Bible Society‘s question,
“How much of what is recorded in the Bible actually happened as it is written?”
Nasrallah replied,

The idea that the Bible is both true and that some things in it didn’t actually happen can be jarring and disturbing. As a student and scholar of the New Testament, I of course conclude that many things did not happen as biblical texts record them. … While I know and teach that a man named Jesus lived in the first century and that we can know something of his first-century context in Judea and the Galilee, the gospels for example can’t tell us what “actually happened.” … I know and I teach that Paul was an actual man, travelling the Mediterranean in the first century, but just because he characterizes the Corinthian community as schismatic does not mean that this “actually happened.”
(For Nasrallah’s complete answer, see the bottom of the page Is the Bible True?)

It is important to be aware of the instructor’s bias against the historical accuracy of the Bible, if one takes the course.

The course incorporates the latest in technology and learning aids. Video lectures go from the Harvard campus to the Mediterranean of Paul’s time, including Pauline sites like Athens, Corinth, and Ephesus. An interactive timeline and map will use Harvard and Princeton collections as well as pictures Nasrallah and her students have taken in the past at archaeological sites in Greece and Turkey. Students will use an online discussion forum to annotate and discuss Paul’s letters.

Here is information from the course description:

The letters of Paul are the earliest texts in the Christian scriptures, written by a Jew at a time when the word “Christian” hadn’t yet been coined. What is the religious and political context into which they emerged? How were they first interpreted? How and why do they make such an enormous impact in Christian communities and in politics today?

Archaeological materials and ancient writings will help you to enter the ancient Mediterranean world and to think about religious groups, power, poverty, health, and the lives of elites and slaves in the Roman Empire. We’ll explore how immediately controversial these letters were, and how these letters are used today to debate relations between Christians and Jews; issues such as love, law, and grace; and topics such as charismatic Christianity, homosexuality, and women’s religious leadership.

Here is Prof. Nasrallah’s 2:29 YouTube video promoting the course.

 

Paul’s Letters: Why Do They Matter?

Why are Paul’s letters still of such great interest today, almost 2,000 years after he wrote them?

Paul’s letters explain the significance of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth and give moral instructions for life. They are “founding documents” of the Christian faith.

Paul’s letters are important in the Creation-Evolution controversies raging today. Paul based his explanation of the Gospel in his letters and in his preaching/teaching on God the Creator (Romans 1:16-25; Colossians 1:13-23; Acts 17:22-31).

Paul’s letters deal with the most important issues of life:
Where did mankind come from?
Why are we here?
What is our purpose in life?
What happens after death?
Paul’s answers in his letters have helped millions for two thousand years.

Biblical Christians accept Paul’s New Testament Epistles as the authoritative Word of God. As such, Paul’s letters define Christian morality and have influenced societies and cultures for two millenia. Today’s culture wars in America are over issues like homosexuality that are settled in Paul’s letters.

I think the primary value of the Letters of Paul course will be learning more about the historical context of Paul’s epistles. This is valuable in properly understanding them. However, based on the theologically liberal reputation of Harvard Divinity School and the instructor’s own bias reflected in her words quoted above, I feel sure that the course will not treat Paul’s letters as the authoritative Word of God.

Nevertheless, the intensive examination of Paul’s letters in this Harvard course will bear fruit, even if they are only studied as historical documents. The Word of God does not return empty (Isaiah 55:8-11). I believe the Holy Spirit will use the course to deepen the faith of many and call some to a regenerating knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Bible-Science Guy logo

Subscribe – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the
Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive
new posts free by email. Click
SUBSCRIBE NOW!

©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:4)
Wednesday March 12, 2014 A.D.

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

Posted by: BibleScienceGuy | March 8, 2014

Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #12

Ken Ham, Creationist vs. Bill Nye, Evolutionist

Ken Ham, Creationist vs. Bill Nye, Evolutionist

What did canyons have to do with the historic Creation-Evolution debate between Creation Museum founder Ken Ham and evolutionist Bill Nye the Science Guy?

This twelfth installment of web reaction to the debate has commentary from a creationist author and speaker. (Links to previous installments are at the end.)

An estimated 10 million viewers watched the live stream of the debate:
Is Creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?
Additionally, as of press time, the YouTube video of the February 4 debate has been viewed over 2.4 million times. Interest and conversation about the debate continues to be intense and vigorous.

Commentary on the Debate from the Web (Part 12)
Jay Seegert

Jay Seegert

Jay Seegert, Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer at the Creation Education Center, reviewed the debate in
Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate. Here are excerpts from Jay Seegert‘s review.

Ham seemed fairly nervous and not as relaxed and passionate as he usually is when delivering his message. Overall, Nye seemed very witty and generally likeable.

Bill Nye used a debate technique in which you throw so many questions or challenges at your opponent that there is no possible way they can respond to them all. Then, when they don’t address something, you accuse them of avoiding that issue and claim they have no answer.

The use of “straw man arguments” was also a common tactic by Nye. … it is a situation in which you claim your opponent believes in something that in reality they don’t (i.e. the “straw man”), and then you set out to disprove it. It often involves something that sounds silly to begin with and is easily discredited.

Another surprising claim made by Nye was that “If someone finds something that disagrees with mainstream science, that’s the greatest thing. That person will be embraced by the scientific community.” While I am sure this happens on occasion, more often than not, those found “bucking the system” are ostracized and harshly treated. This is especially true of anyone questioning evolution.

Seegert went on in his debate review to answer many of the issues Nye raised to which Ham did not have time to reply. These included Observational vs. Historical Science, Kangaroos, Tiktaalik (an alleged transitional fossil between fish and four-legged creatures), Sexual Reproduction, Ice Cores & Tree Rings, Fossils Swimming Between Layers, Thermodynamics, Predictions, and What Would Cause Nye to Doubt Billions of Years.

With respect to the Ark and the Flood, Seegert remarked,

Commenting on the building of the ark, Nye stated that Noah and his family were “unskilled” and could never have built such a large vessel. How does he know they were unskilled? He doesn’t. In fact, people of that era (specifically just after the flood) built huge pyramids which we cannot reproduce today with the best equipment known to man! Unskilled? I don’t think so. As far as only 8 people building the ark, God gave them the design and there’s no reason that Noah could not have contracted others to help in its construction.

Nye boldly claimed that there was no evidence for a worldwide flood and went on to say that if there were such an event, we should expect to see Grand Canyons on other continents, but we don’t. He probably won’t want to change his name to “Bill Nye the Geology Guy” anytime soon, because (apparently to his surprise) we do have massive canyons on all continents. Try these for example:

  • Copper Canyon (Mexico) is deeper and longer than the US’s Grand Canyon.
  • Indus Gorge (Himalayan Mountains) is the world’s deepest gorge.
  • Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Canyon (Tibet) close to the deepest canyon in the world.
  • Kali Gandaki Gorge (Nepal) also close to the deepest canyon in the world.
  • Fish River Canyon (Africa)
  • Recently discovered Grand Canyon under the ice in 2013 (Greenland) possibly the longest canyon in the word!

Canyons are evidence of Noah’s Flood, and they occur worldwide. Evolutionist dogma is that canyons formed over millions of years through erosion by the rivers in the canyon bottoms. Sometimes these rivers are tiny, like the Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River that you can wade across and in places even step across (as I have done). Did this tiny river form the huge 20-mile-wide Palo Duro Canyon in west Texas? No way! Rather, the canyon formed the river.

Many canyons formed rapidly by turbulent run-off from Noah’s Flood 4500 years ago. Flood waters quickly carved through still-soft, water-deposited sediments to reveal the beautiful layers we see today. After the Flood carved the canyons, water collecting in the bottom formed the rivers.

This is exactly what happened with the North Fork of the Toutle River at Mount St. Helens in 1982 when geologists watched a mudflow carve a canyon in one day with the river forming subsequently. The Grand Canyon’s formation was similar.

I myself have visited impressive canyons all over the USA that probably resulted from Noah’s Flood:

  • Zion Canyon – Utah
  • Bryce Canyon – Utah
  • Little Grand Canyon – Yellowstone National Park, WY
  • Bighorn Canyon – Wyoming
  • Grand Canyon of the East – Letchworth State Park, NY
  • Niagara Gorge – New York
  • Quechee Gorge – Vermont
  • Tallulah Gorge – Georgia
  • Cuyahoga Valley National Park – Ohio
  • Palo Duro Canyon – “The Grand Canyon of Texas” is America’s second largest canyon – 120 miles long, 20 miles wide, 800 feet deep. (By comparison, Arizona’s Grand Canyon is 277 miles long, 18 miles wide, 6,000 feet deep.)
Yellowstone's Grand Canyon

Yellowstone’s Grand Canyon

Which came first, the river or the canyon? The canyon.

Seegert continued,

Regarding the flood and Noah’s ark, Nye stated that it would be impossible to generate the 16 million species of creatures he believes are around today from just 7,000 “kinds” on the ark starting just 4,000 years ago. … he claimed it would mean that we should see 11 new species appearing on the Earth every day. However, this grossly misstates the situation and sadly shows Nye’s lack of understanding of the biblical model which he sets out to dismantle. …the Bible says that Noah only took the “air-breathing” animals on the ark, so that would exclude bacteria, viruses and even most, if not all, of the insects and related creatures, many of which could survive outside the ark in small populations on floating log mats (which has been demonstrated). The number of species today that would be related to those having been on the ark is a much smaller number and speciation rates (that we observe today) occur much more rapidly than scientists had expected. Also, the number of current species is generally exaggerated.

Overall, I am glad there was a debate, even though it didn’t go as I would have liked. … I hope the debate serves to get people talking about Christianity and the Bible and I trust that it will lead to conversations that might otherwise have never occurred.

 
Read the prequel articles on this debate:
Creation-Evolution Debate: Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye – background info & the YouTube videos that sparked the debate.
Ham on Nye Debate Update
Who Won the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye Debate?
– includes YouTube video of debate
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #1 – 4 web commentators
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #2 – 4 web commentators
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #3 – comments from debate moderator and post-debate challenges from debaters to each other
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #4 – Albert Mohler’s assessment
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #5 – Nye’s debate coach comments
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #6 – astronomer, CMI, WORLD mag
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #7 – Gary DeMar, Mally sisters video
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #8 – apologetics prof, science historian, debater
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #9 – chemist, ID advocate
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #10 – ID advocates
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #11 – space scientist

This completes my series of 15 articles on the Ham-Nye Creation-Evolution debate.
Answers in Genesis has published a very long list of articles answering all the scientific issues brought up in the debate. See Debate Answers for this list.
Clash over worldviews: An analysis of the Ham/Nye debate from Creation Ministries International also rebuts Nye’s debate claims.
The debate site has an indexed video of the debate, so that you can jump to any point in the debate using the drop down menu index.

Questions to Ponder
  1. Do you agree with Nye that there is absolutely “no evidence for a worldwide flood”? What about the continent-spanning layers of sediment worldwide? What about the fossil graveyards full of all kinds of creatures jumbled together? What about polystrate fossils like tree trunks passing through many layers?
  2. How did the deep-sea limestone crowning Mt. Everest get there? Why does it contain ocean-bottom fossils? Why do marine fossils top all mountain ranges worldwide?
  3. Share your thoughts on these questions in the comments below. It could encourage or help another reader.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Bible-Science Guy logo

Subscribe – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the
Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive
new posts free by email. Click
SUBSCRIBE NOW!

©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:4)
Saturday March 8, 2014 A.D.

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20:11)

Posted by: BibleScienceGuy | March 6, 2014

Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #11

Debaters Ken Ham & Bill Nye

Debaters Ken Ham & Bill Nye

What would a space scientist think about the historic Creation-Evolution debate between Creation Museum founder Ken Ham and evolutionist Bill Nye the Science Guy?

This eleventh installment of web reaction to the debate has commentary from a computer specialist supporting NASA’s Cassini mission to explore Saturn. (Links to previous installments are at the end.)

An estimated 10 million viewers watched the live stream of the debate:
Is Creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?
Additionally, as of press time, the YouTube video of the February 4 debate has been viewed over 2.4 million times. Interest and conversation about the debate continues to be intense and vigorous.

Commentary on the Debate from the Web (Part 11)
David Coppedge

David Coppedge

Creation-Evolution Headlines editor and space scientist David Coppedge reviewed the debate in
Bill Nye Scores on Debate Presentation if Not Logic.

I concur with Coppedge that Nye’s debate presence was better than Ham’s even though Ham had the better arguments. I also agree that Ham should have given more creationist interpretations of evidence and disputed Nye’s evolutionist interpretations. You have to start with where people are. Here are excerpts from Coppedge’s review of the debate:

Bill Nye could not account for the laws of logic, but it won’t matter to many listeners wooed by his charm. …fans of Nye will likely take heart at his stage presence and emotional appeal.

With great respect for Ken Ham and his influence, I regret to state that, in my opinion, he lost on presentation, though he scored significant factual and logical points. This was surprising, since I know him to be quick on his feet and logically astute. But most of the time, it appeared to me that Bill Nye had Ham playing defense, trying to justify his “extraordinary beliefs” as Nye characterized them.

Consider the emotional aspects of stage presence. Nye looked his audience in the eye, talking to them with a spirit of “the joy of science” and “the joy of discovery,” bringing in grand vistas of cell phones, satellites, astronomers and medical researchers all participating in the grand adventure of progress and understanding called science. … When Ham spoke, Nye stared him down, with a serious look almost of a scowl of incredulity. Ham looked meek by comparison. The meek may inherit the earth, but they don’t win debates. Confidence, courage, and authority are important in one’s demeanor. We can all hope that later analysis will show who won on the merit of the arguments and evidence, but on the spot, when the cameras are rolling, you want to take control of the situation. … But Nye appeared to be the one in charge. He got away with portraying creation as an “extraordinary view” in contrast to “science” that loves to “discover” things. But in actuality, what could be more extraordinary than believing Nye’s mind emerged out of hydrogen? What could be more extraordinary than believing nothing times nobody equals everything?

Instead of defending Darwinism, most of the time Nye grabbed the “science” ball and ran with it, positioning himself as the champion of discovery, progress, and even patriotism. Nye characterized the debate as “the world” against Ken Ham, “the scientific community” and “billions of religious people” against this one man’s narrow literal interpretation of an ancient book translated into English by processes as unreliable as the old game of telephone. When Ken Ham had the floor, he was often looking down at his laptop with his glasses on, as if preoccupied with what Powerpoint slide he could pull up to respond to the latest red herring from Nye. This caused him to stumble for words and lose his train of thought.

Ham’s main repository of evidence was the Bible – sure to get Amen’s from the Christians in the audience, but unlikely to impress skeptics or fence-sitters swooning under Nye’s stimulating stories about ice cores, radioactive elements, and fossil skulls. (And that’s what it was: storytelling with adroit use of card stacking.) Did Ham forget that the Apostle Paul, when speaking to Gentiles, appealed to sense observation of creation in Romans 1, Acts 14, and Acts 17? Surely he knows this, because he teaches in his books and lectures the difference in approach one must use with today’s secularists. Doesn’t he remember Gish and Morris using only scientific arguments, not religious references, in their debates? This was not the place to defend Genesis. Discussions of the Ark and Babel are very appropriate downstream questions once the major question of design is decided, but not to modern pagans willing to accept Nye’s characterization of the Bible as an ancient text. How can an ancient text, flawed through translation, speak to “today’s modern, scientific era”? That was the picture being portrayed; it gave Bill Nye open season to ridicule details about the Ark, Noah, and vegetarian lions, without having to justify his fairy tale that unguided processes can turn hydrogen into scientists.

Several times [Ham] stated the importance of the laws of logic, stressing that the Christian world view accounts for the laws of nature and of logic. He asked Bill Nye to explain the laws of logic – something Nye failed to do. He pointed out that scientists rely on the creation worldview to do science.

Ham also pointed out that evolutionism is religious, but did not score rhetorically with it. He could have shut Nye’s mouth with words to the effect that “Everyone who uses reason is a supernaturalist, and you, Bill Nye, are a thief!” Turning to the audience, he should have said, “Bill Nye is stealing from the creation world view to use reason and logic. How can he get those out of a big bang?”

Ham pointed to several eminent scientists who are creationists…But the point is not that “some scientists are creationists” or “you can be a creationist and still be a good scientist.” The point to drive home is that the creation worldview is essential to good science, but secularists, like parasites, plagiarize creationist assumptions.

Ham said that we have the same evidence but just disagree on the interpretation of the evidence because of our assumptions. While that is true to an extent, what he needed to debate was the superiority of creation’s interpretations over evolution’s interpretations.

Ham believes creation because he believes the Bible, and no evidence will change his mind, he basically said. Bill Nye followed by portraying himself as the open-minded guy willing to change his mind if there’s evidence: bring it on! … Ken Ham could have bludgeoned that argument with counter-arguments showing evolutionists are not open-minded, that they have a philosophical commitment to materialism that is absolute. … Ham should have spoken directly to the unconvinced, proving evolutionists are insufferable bigots denying academic freedom to skeptics of the Darwin idol and persecuting those who don’t chant DODO ["Darwin only! Darwin only!"]

With the rhetorical upper hand, Bill Nye was able to get away with fallacies, half truths and big lies. Many of his “arguments” were mere assertions.

It is with sadness I evaluate this debate as a loss for Ham, even though he did score well at times. If you subtract out the rhetoric and personality fluff, Ham did better. If you clear up Nye’s factual errors and logical fallacies, Ham arguably won.

The debate question was poorly framed, and the subject matter too broad. I think Ken Ham should have known his audience, opponent, and main message better. He should have played more offense and less defense. And it’s a reminder to all of us that presentation, not just facts, is important for making a winning case.

I want to thank AIG and Ken Ham for having the courage to invite Bill Nye to back up his bluff. Though I believe his arguments were unsound, Bill Nye showed himself to be a worthy competitor and is to be commended for debating on AIG’s home turf. … Let the debate continue.

Coppedge also commented on the debate in Fact Checkers, Spin Doctors Go to Work After Creation Debate:

We hope that in the aftermath, with the personality issues fading from memory, the facts will be clarified with details and references, so that it will become clear who really had the better scientific information. What AIG needs to do (and appears to be doing) is to rush its supporting documentation to press as far and wide as possible, to clarify points that were not rhetorically effective, and to expose the factual errors and illogic Nye employed. Ken should also be honest about what he wishes he would have said, and should have said, instead of spinning the debate as a total victory (which it was not). He portrays his performance more positively than it came across to many listeners, even some supportive ones. The debate can still be rescued for good in at least two ways: (1) clarification of any lingering doubts about the science, and (2) use as a training video on how to improve debates against fast-talking Darwinians. In the final analysis, all viewers should keep in mind that, as in a court of law, it’s not the flair of the lawyer that should sway the jury, but his evidence.

 
Read the prequel articles on this debate:
Creation-Evolution Debate: Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye – background info & the YouTube videos that sparked the debate.
Ham on Nye Debate Update
Who Won the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye Debate?
– includes YouTube video of debate
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #1 – 4 web commentators
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #2 – 4 web commentators
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #3 – comments from debate moderator and post-debate challenges from debaters to each other
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #4 – Albert Mohler’s assessment
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #5 – Nye’s debate coach comments
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #6 – astronomer, CMI, WORLD mag
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #7 – Gary DeMar, Mally sisters video
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #8 – apologetics prof, science historian, debater
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #9 – chemist, ID advocate
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #10 – ID advocates

Read the sequel with more web commentary:
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #12 – creationist speaker, canyons

Questions to Ponder
  1. How would you answer this question from the debate: What evidence would cause you to change your mind about Creation-Evolution?
  2. What Scriptural reason can you think of to cultivate effective “stage presence” when explaining Biblical truth?
  3. Share your thoughts on these questions in the comments below. It could encourage or help another reader.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Bible-Science Guy logo

Subscribe – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the
Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive
new posts free by email. Click
SUBSCRIBE NOW!

©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:4)
Thursday March 6, 2014 A.D.

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20:11)

Posted by: BibleScienceGuy | March 4, 2014

Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #10

Nye-Ham Debate

Debaters Bill Nye & Ken Ham

What would Intelligent Design advocates think about the historic Creation-Evolution debate between Creation Museum founder Ken Ham and evolutionist Bill Nye the Science Guy?

This tenth installment of web reaction to the debate has commentary from a neurosurgeon and from the website Uncommon Descent. (Links to previous installments are at the end.)

An estimated 10 million viewers watched the live stream of the debate:
Is Creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?
Additionally, as of press time, the YouTube video of the February 4 debate has been viewed over 2.3 million times. Interest and conversation about the debate continues to be intense and vigorous.

Commentary on the Debate from the Web (Part 10)

Uncommon Descent promotes the scientific and intellectual development of Intelligent Design. Their review of the debate focused on Nye’s fossil and geology claims. Here are excerpts from Nye-Ham and how evolutionism possibly poisons science in lab, field and theory:

Even if Ken Ham may have fumbled on presentation, the facts may show him possibly closer to the truth on some matters. …let me focus on the question of lab and field reporting in historical geology and paleontology, and something Nye said would change his mind. He said something to the effect:

“Why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers?”

He suggested if we found such things he might change his mind.

So do we have something that ought to change Nye’s mind. Absolutely!

Many people are surprised when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one evolutionary paleontologist’s explanation.

“We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”

So is there a possibility anomalies are edited out and instead a practice of false reporting (perhaps innocently done) has been perpetuated. They probably think something like: “We found a mammal, that’s clearly contamination because we know mammals aren’t in that era”. So thus we never hear official reports of the anomalies because the anomalies are regarded as contaminants since according to the false narrative, certain creatures didn’t live in certain eras.

This would then admit the possibility at least some (not all) “old” fossils are actually young. Note, this doesn’t not necessarily refute the claim of long ages, it may only demonstrate we are hasty in our conclusions. But to say, “we possibly made a mistake, we possibly don’t know the real age” is heresy in the world of Darwin.

Nye also questioned how layers could be formed by a flood. In response, Uncommon Descent included a video in their debate review showing how layers form quickly. Uncommon Descent says,

The video explains why even in principle layers are unlikely to form slowly! … It crushes Nye’s claims about Grand Canyon formation.

There you have it. Real but taboo empirical and theoretical science that you won’t get in school. Why? Evolutionism possibly poisons science in lab, field, and theory. Falsehoods are perpetuated, and truth is rarely known.

 

Question text

Question text: What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?

BuzzFeed photo-journalist Matt Stopera asked creationists at the debate for questions for evolutionists.

Here is one of his 22 question pictures from his report
22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution.

Stopera also documented his 3-hour tour of the Creation Museum in this photo-report: 45 Things I Learned At The Creation Museum. He said,

The museum is HUGE. It’s also REALLY nice. Like one of the nicest museums I’ve ever been to. It took me over three hours to go through it. Through the course of those three hours, I learned just about everything I could possibly ever want to know about creationism.

 
Pediatric neurosurgeon and Intelligent Design advocate Dr. Michael Egnor commented on the debate from the perspective of Intelligent Design. Excerpts from
Reflecting on the Ham-Nye Creation Debate: Intelligent Design Stands in a Great Scientific Tradition follow:

I think that Ham did very well — he pointed out the important differences between observational/experimental science and historical science, and he made the important point that historical science is particularly influenced by metaphysical assumptions. Darwinists like Bill Nye do their historical science from a materialist and atheist perspective, and it clearly taints their insights.

Unlike Nye, Ham was honest about his own perspectives — which are Biblical and for which I have great respect and much agreement.

My own perspective is that revelation and reason are not, and cannot be, in conflict. Nature speaks to us of our Creator. I seek to “follow the evidence,” as do other advocates of intelligent design. But it would be naïve to think anyone’s quest for scientific truth is without a specific metaphysical perspective.

When I follow the evidence, I begin with a set of quite specific assumptions. Those assumptions are the product of the great Western tradition, which is the marriage of Athens and Jerusalem — the marriage of reason and faith.

The intelligent design movement stands in that tradition, which gave us the Scientific Enlightenment and modern science. That tradition has been derailed in science today by materialists like Nye who presume atheism and presume Darwinism.

Intelligent design rejects the dogma of materialism. Materialist science is a betrayal, not a fulfillment, of modern science.

Intelligent design science is a call for a reawakening of the great scientific tradition that arose in the Christian West — the science of great scientists like Copernicus and Galileo and Newton and Kepler and Pasteur and Faraday and Maxwell. All of the great scientists who gave us modern science inferred intelligent design in nature. The great scientists of the Scientific Enlightenment followed the evidence and openly testified to the design in creation.

Intelligent design stands in the tradition of the Scientific Enlightenment. We follow the evidence, confident in the consilience of faith and reason, trusting in the rationality and purpose that is evident to all of us in nature.

 
Read the prequel articles on this debate:
Creation-Evolution Debate: Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye – background info & the YouTube videos that sparked the debate.
Ham on Nye Debate Update
Who Won the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye Debate?
– includes YouTube video of debate
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #1 – 4 web commentators
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #2 – 4 web commentators
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #3 – comments from debate moderator and post-debate challenges from debaters to each other
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #4 – Albert Mohler’s assessment
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #5 – Nye’s debate coach comments
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #6 – astronomer, CMI, WORLD mag
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #7 – Gary DeMar, Mally sisters video
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #8 – apologetics prof, science historian, debater
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #9 – chemist, ID advocate

Read the sequel with more web commentary:
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #11 – space scientist

Questions to Ponder
  1. If the photojournalist referenced in this post tapped you for his feature, what question for evolutionists would you write and display?
  2. How have you personally merged faith and reason? What do you think about Dr. Egnor’s challenge to believe in the consilience of faith and reason?
    (In science and history, consilience refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can “converge” to strong conclusions.)
  3. Share your thoughts on these questions in the comments below. It could encourage or help another reader.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Bible-Science Guy logo

Subscribe – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the
Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive
new posts free by email. Click
SUBSCRIBE NOW!

©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:4)
Tuesday March 4, 2014 A.D.

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20:11)

Posted by: BibleScienceGuy | March 1, 2014

Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #9

What would a chemist who authors science texts for homeschoolers think about the historic Creation-Evolution debate between Creation Museum founder Ken Ham and evolutionist Bill Nye the Science Guy?

Evidence Battle

Both Creationists and Evolutionists have the same evidence. Their different explanations of the evidence are driven by their different underlying assumptions. The battle is really over worldviews, not evidence.

This ninth installment of web reaction to the debate has commentary from a chemist and an Intelligent Design advocate. (Links to previous installments are at the end.)

An estimated 10 million viewers watched the live stream of the debate:
Is Creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?
Additionally, as of press time, the YouTube video of the February 4 debate has been viewed over 2.3 million times. Interest and conversation about the debate continues to be intense and vigorous.

Commentary on the Debate from the Web (Part 9)

Nuclear chemist Dr. Jay Wile is well-known for his science curriculum for homeschoolers. Here are excerpts from his debate commentary
Talking Past One Another – The Ham/Nye Debate:

I had some pretty high hopes for the debate, and some of them were realized. However, most of them were not.

While there were plenty of opportunities for the debaters to interact, they rarely did so. As the title of this post indicates, they spent most of their time talking past one another. That’s unfortunate, because a real discussion between the two debaters would have been more illuminating than what happened in the debate.

[Ham] kept showing videos of young-earth creationists who are doing real science right now. This was good, since the debate was a result of Nye’s anti-science claim that there is no place for creationism in today’s society. Those videos destroyed that claim, and throughout the debate Nye never even tried to address how these successful scientists could be young-earth creationists given his stated position.

Ham’s best moment, however, came when he talked about predictions that the young-earth creationist model makes and how they have been confirmed by the data. For example, he presented the creationist “orchard” as opposed to the evolutionary “tree of life.” He then quoted from two studies. The first was about dogs. It showed that all dogs came from a single common ancestor, which goes against evolutionary expectations but is exactly what was predicted by the creationist model. The second was the human genome project, which showed that all humans belong to a single race. This is diametrically opposed to what was believed by most evolutionists throughout history, which is that there were several races of man, with the Caucasian race being the most “evolved.” Ham even quoted from an old high school textbook that used evolution to promote such racism.

[Nye] brought up a lot of evidence that he thinks opposes a young earth (ice cores, trees, rock layers, order of fossils in the fossil record, distant stars, fossil skulls, and animal migration). All of that evidence, of course, has been addressed by young-earth creationists, and some of what Nye said about it was quite incorrect.

[Nye] said that you wouldn’t expect to see layers of rock in the geological record if there were a worldwide Flood. However, a quick review of any creationist literature not only shows that they expect such layers, but that observations of local floods as well as laboratory experiments demonstrate that floods can, indeed, produce layers of sediment that will form layers of rock. He also claimed that the creation model can’t make predictions. Of course, this was after Ham had discussed predictions of the creation model and how they have been confirmed by the data. Once again, even a short perusal of the creationist literature shows that the model makes all sorts of predictions, many of which have been confirmed by the data.

[Nye] discussed the number of animals that would need to be on the ark…while his numbers are very wrong, he does point to a real issue with young-earth creationism: diversification of species had to have been much more rapid in the past than it is today. Now, there are good reasons to believe that it was, but nevertheless, I don’t know of any really good young-earth model that addresses the specifics [of] rapid post-Flood diversification.

While each presenter made some good (and bad) points in his opening presentation, neither of them addressed much of what the other said. Ham, for example, kept asking Nye where the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature came from. The creation model explains this, the naturalistic model does not. Nye never answered him. Nye, on the other hand, kept asking Ham to explain the various hominid fossils found in the fossil record. Ham never answered him.

In the same way, both debaters seemed to simply ignore the other on many issues. Ham kept saying that he had shown the creation model makes predictions that are verified, and he said there are many other examples. Nye kept saying the creation model makes no predictions. Nye kept saying that the creation model will harm the U.S. when it comes to science and technology. Ham had shown the videos of creation scientists who are doing serious scientific work, and Nye never explained how these scientists could exist if his view is correct. Nye kept calling the creation model “Ken Ham’s model” and the worldwide Flood “Ken Ham’s flood,” even though Ham told him that creation and the flood aren’t his ideas. They come from the Bible, and the creation model has been worked on by lots of PhD scientists. Nye kept talking about the Bible as it if had been translated many, many times, at one point even comparing it to a game of “telephone.” Ham never pointed out how completely wrong such a statement is.

Will this debate change any minds? I doubt it, because each debater never really addressed the other’s contentions. However, I do think that the post-debate discussions that people have could change some minds. That’s the real value of a public debate. This debate allowed some arguments related to the origins issue to be “put out there.” Now it is time to discuss them. That discussion can be incredibly valuable, both scientifically and spiritually.

 

Casey Luskin

Casey Luskin

Intelligent Design advocate Casey Luskin from the Discovery Institute is an attorney with graduate degrees in science and law and is a contributor to Evolution News and Views. Luskin is the Discovery Institute‘s Research Coordinator for the Center for Science and Culture. Here are excerpts from his debate commentary,
The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity:

Ham talked about some science here and there, but almost all of what he said focused on trying to support a young earth viewpoint. Since he’s not a scientist, the great majority of his arguments amounted — over and over again — to “Because the Bible says so.” Nye’s main argument was, “Because the evidence says so,” and he cited a lot of reasonable evidence for an old earth. While Ham did make a few effective points that you don’t have to accept evolution to do good science, the compelling scientific evidence for design in nature got skipped over.

Because the focus was so overwhelmingly on the age of the earth, the point was never made that a mainstream scientific view about the age of the earth is totally compatible with an intelligent design view that totally refutes Nye’s intolerant, materialist beliefs about the history of life.

I strongly prefer evidence-based approaches to origins like ID [Intelligent Design]. Skeptics who say “Show me the evidence” are challenged with evidence, because that’s what ID argues from — the evidence for design in nature, not in the Bible.

It’s extremely regrettable that the powerful evidence for design in nature was hardly discussed in the Ham-Nye debate. A huge opportunity was lost.

[Nye] knows next to nothing about the many emerging scientific challenges to the neo-Darwinian paradigm. He didn’t hardly try to defend Darwinism in the debate, and a debater who was familiar with these issues could have shown the audience that an ID-based view of life is far superior to a Darwinian one.

Nye gave the bland argument that “Evolution is a process that adds complexity through natural selection,” but he probably has no idea about the growing body of evidence that is leading scientists to reject natural selection as an explanation for much of biological complexity.

Nye also said nature is “inconsistent with a top-down view” of ID. I suppose Nye is unaware that scientists increasingly say that understanding biology requires a top-down approach.

ID principles are bearing real fruit in science. What we find in life is fundamentally incompatible with the “bottom-up” approach of neo-Darwinian theory. Biology in the 21st century requires a goal-directed cause that can explain the integrated, “top-down,” “holistic,” and “irreducible organisational complexity” of the cell. That cause is intelligent design, but the audience watching the Ham-Nye debate, live or online, learned hardly anything about this viewpoint.

 
Read the prequel articles on this debate:
Creation-Evolution Debate: Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye – background info & the YouTube videos that sparked the debate.
Ham on Nye Debate Update
Who Won the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye Debate?
– includes YouTube video of debate
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #1 – 4 web commentators
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #2 – 4 web commentators
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #3 – comments from debate moderator and post-debate challenges from debaters to each other
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #4 – Albert Mohler’s assessment
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #5 – Nye’s debate coach comments
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #6 – astronomer, CMI, WORLD mag
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #7 – Gary DeMar, Mally sisters video
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #8 – apologetics prof, science historian, debater.

Read the sequel with more web commentary:
Post-Debate Buzz Heats Up for Ham vs. Nye #10 – ID advocates

Questions to Ponder
  1. How would you answer Nye’s claim that teaching creation will impede the development of science and technology in the USA?
  2. Luskin lamented Ham’s omission of evidence for design. What strikes you as the most compelling example of design in nature?
  3. Share your thoughts on these questions in the comments below. It could encourage or help another reader.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Bible-Science Guy logo

Subscribe – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the
Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive
new posts free by email. Click
SUBSCRIBE NOW!

©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:4)
Saturday March 1, 2014 A.D.

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20:11)

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,237 other followers

%d bloggers like this: