Drove Home Three Main Points

As I was checking out links on the internet yesterday (I receive “alerts” when the name of Answers in Genesis pops up on websites), I came across a scathing report of the recent presentations I gave at the Homeschool Convention in Naperville, Illinois. However, then I realized the report was written by an atheist who attended the lectures. Therefore, such mocking, scathing comments are to be expected.

Then I was sent a link to a report that was posted on Examiner.com, which is (as a staff member informed me) a user-generated news website. Basically, anyone can create a city-specific column and write articles. For instance, I could create an Examiner column page called “Creationism in Kentucky” and write about creationism in Kentucky—or whatever I felt like writing about Kentucky events and issues.

There are several writers/contributors who write about Answers in Genesis. I was interested to read an article by a Tim Ryan, who wrote about my Naperville presentations. He calls his column “Oswego Christian Apologetics Examiner.” (He’s from the Chicago area.). The article did a good job of summarizing the points of my presentations, so I thought it would be good to reprint a section of his article below and then link to the entire article.

The author wrote:

Ham drove home three main points throughout most of his presentations at the conference: the difference between operation science and historical / origin science; the myth of neutrality; and a proper understanding of the evidence or data relating to the origin of the universe and all life. To expand on each of these concepts, Ham explained that operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases.

Historical or Origin science attempts to discover truth about the past by examining reliable eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see. People need to realize that the debate between creationists and evolutionists is not about operation science, which is based in the present. The debate is about origin science and conflicting assumptions, or beliefs, about the past.

The myth of neutrality — no one is neutral. Every system of thought must begin with a set of assumptions and is, therefore, not neutral. Everyone comes to the table with a pre-existing worldview or belief structure about the world around them that influences how they interpret the evidence before them. This myth encompasses the belief that people, particularly scientists, are neutral and simply follow the evidence wherever it leads. This is not true. All people look at the evidence with their “worldview glasses” on so to speak — this especially true with regard to the origin of the universe and all life.

Ham’s third point is that there is only one set of scientific evidences or data that the atheist and theist both share. For example, it is not as if atheist evolutionary scientists have one set of data and the creationists have a different set of data and these two data conflict with one another. Rather, we all have the same data and the dispute is over how best to interpret and understand that data. At its root, the conflict is a battle between worldviews—a creationist’s starting assumptions (God exists, a biblical worldview) and an evolutionist’s starting assumptions (no God, an anti-biblical worldview).

All of us, whether theists or atheists would do well to understand these crucial points.

It’s good to read an article where the writer actually does accurately sum up what I said. Yes, they were the three main points I wanted to drive home, and I urge all of you to understand these. You can read the entire article at this link.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken