Thursday, April 17, 2014

Roasting Ham; or, You Aren’t Really a Presuppositionalist Unless I Say So

[Although I work for Answers in Genesis (AiG) and was very involved in the debate preparation and strategy, what follows is my own personal view on the debate and should not be considered an official AiG response. I intend to adapt this response into an article that will appear on the AiG site without all of the personal aspects. Please do not quote or use this article’s contents as coming from AiG, but from me personally.]

[A second note: I did intend and arrange to publish this blog on the Gospel Spam blog site in late February where Jon Speed’s article was originally published, but the arrangements did not work out. I regretfully post this here on my personal blog and hope that the appropriate interactions may still take place. I trust there are many who habit that site who may benefit from what I have written and those from whose comments I might benefit, as well.]

Grab a cup of coffee and your favorite slippers—this is gonna be a long one!

I Lost It


I am writing this article partially in response to the previous article by Jon Speed (“Ham on Nye. A Debate Critique.”) as well as a host of other comments I have heard regarding the debate on blogs, social media pages, and various radio shows and podcasts. My comments are directed primarily at those who consider or refer to themselves as “extreme presuppositionalists,” though others will be addressed as well.

First, let me get a few things off of my chest.
You might call me a pansy, but some of the comments immediately following the debate were hurtful and outside of the type of speech I understand Ephesians 4:29 calls believers to share with one another. God made me with emotions, but I have to be in control of those emotions as I seek to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. I tried. I failed. My flesh raged against the descriptions of the debate as a “failure,” “sad,” “a waste of time,” “Jason/Sye/Paul/JoeBlow would have done better,” “AiG put God on trial,” Ken shoulda/coulda mopped the floor with Nye,” “AiG sponsored a 45-minute blasphemy session,” and several others. I am sure there was a bit of righteous anger in there, but I still sinned in my internal responses.

Between those comments from my brothers and sisters and monitoring the thousands who flooded the AiG social media pages I administer, I was overwhelmed with grief. I was disheartened and discouraged by such a strong backlash against the debate’s content and methods, especially when some commentators were willing to do entire shows having not even watched the debate (but they saw a few clips!). In most cases there were acknowledgments of the good aspects, but it seemed the focus was on drawing out the perceived failures ad nauseum. Several people even acknowledged they were going to say things in a kind way even though they didn’t really want to (Ephesians 4:29, anybody?).

By the Saturday following the debate and after a few exchanges on Facebook and by email, I lost it. Big time. Between my grief over so many perishing souls raging against God and the constant bickering between brothers over how much evidence was enough and for how many more seconds Ken should have held Bill’s feet to the fire, I limped to my closet. Sitting with my back against the cold steel of my gun safes in the small, dark room that seemed to fit the size of my soul, I wailed and sobbed for the unity of my brothers and sisters and the impending doom of so many scoffers, crying out to God for His mercy and grace for all of these things. I repented and am trying to rest in Christ through all of this.

The Strategy


One of the concerns many had about the debate was the format and topic. I wasn’t involved in that aspect of the debate, so all I can say is that I wish it had been different. Don’t bother asking me how those aspects came about because I don’t know and I don’t really care to know. The debate is over and I can’t change the past. A period of cross examination would have been helpful, no doubt. The topic put Ken on the defense, so we made the best of that. It seems the only topic some would have been pleased to accept would have been: Bill Nye hates God and needs to repent and acknowledge he is a fool! (I don’t think Bill would agree to that as a debate topic.)

Some have implied or stated that this debate put Bill on the stage to blaspheme God for 45 minutes (really, each speaker had 68 minutes of talk time, so it is worse) and that this was sinful. If you truly believe this is what happened, then I ask you to write up a scriptural case and present it as a rebuke, calling us to repent. I have directly asked two brothers for this and neither even replied to me (they may be preparing them). 
Another said it would have been sinful for him, but not necessarily for Ken. So if this type of critique is indeed a matter of conscience, we need to make that clear in our critiques rather than making broad pronouncements of the sinfulness of the acts and serious moral charges against our brothers and sisters.

I would suggest that the topic actually assumed the existence of God rather than asking for a seat at the secular scientific table. Further, the way that Ken constantly rooted his explanations for the scientific models and evidence he presented firmly in Scripture and affirmed that apart from God science is impossible at least ten times acknowledged this a priori assumption. We can’t talk about “biblical creation” without first assuming the Creator. There was no point in the debate at which Ken looked to any scientific model that was not based on Scripture, especially in light of his multiple acknowledgements that whenever he interprets the past he does so based on the true history of the Bible as his authority. For example, in his opening statement, Ken said, “Here at the Creation Museum we make no apology about the fact to our origins or historical science actually is based upon the biblical account of origins.” Ken then went on to suggest that Bill’s worldview had no firm foundation (a point he would develop throughout the debate), saying:

You see I assert that the word “science” has been hijacked by secularists in teaching evolution to force the religion of naturalism on generations of kids. Secular evolutionists teach that all life developed by natural processes from some primordial form, that man is just an evolved animal which has a great bearing on how we view life and death.

For instance, as Bill states: [video clip] “It’s very hard to accept for many of us that when you die it’s over.” 

But you see, the Bible gives a totally different account of origins, of who we were, where we came from, the meaning of life, and our future:

“From the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.’” (Mark 10:6–7, NKJV)
Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin. (Romans 5:12, NKJV)
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16, NKJV)

So, is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?

I say: The creation/evolution debate is [really] a conflict between two philosophical worldviews based on two different accounts of origins or [historical] science beliefs. Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today’s modern scientific era.

So Ken closed his opening statement by pointing out the conflict of worldviews is the ultimate question in the debate. “Creation is the only” scientific way to look at the universe that actually corresponds with reality because it is the only view that starts with the right foundation.

Consider the Audience


In James White’s helpful critique on the “Dividing Line” on February 6, 2014, he offered a helpful explanation about considering the audience. The audience was not Bill Nye—it was much broader, some unbelievers intent on rejecting God no matter what they heard, some unbelievers truly interested to hear what both sides had to say, some soft Christians, and some strong Christians. Of course, there are many flavors within each of those categories, but the audience was far broader than one agnostic science guy on the stage.

As Dr. White pointed out, you always lose the debate to some segment of the audience. As the debater, you have to make a decision regarding your strategy knowing that you will miss some portion. With millions watching live and millions more to watch in the subsequent days, we made a decision. That decision was to address multiple parts of the audience that we would have one opportunity to engage.
What about those in the listening audience who were the 1 Peter 3:15 “askers” with sincere questions? (“I am sure there is a God, but I am not sure if these Christians have it right. I wonder why they think it is so important to believe in a young earth? Is there really any evidence for such a claim? How does that relate to Jesus?”) We chose to address those people within the remarks.

What about those in the listening audience who were young-earth believers? We offered them reassuring evidences for the reasonableness of their faith. For the old-earth believers, we offered the challenge of thinking about death before sin in any view that allows for billions of years before the creation.
What about the believers who think you should leave the Bible out of it and argue from purely “scientific” reasoning and arguments from design (the Discovery Institute and the broader Intelligent Design Movement)? We ignored them, knowing they would say we lost as soon as we mentioned Jesus or the Bible. (And they did, as men like Eric Metaxas and Casey Luskin wrote about the debate.) We ignored this part of the audience because we understand this to be an unbiblical approach. To divorce the identity and character of the Creator from the description and explanation of His creation is to deny God as Creator, and especially the Lord Jesus Christ who created all things. We will never divorce the issues because the Creator is the Savior.
What about those who think you should beat the opponent with the TAG until they cry “uncle”? We knew we would disappoint them by using evidence in what we understand to be a biblical manner even though Bill was challenged to provide a rational basis for his naturalism multiple times.

What about those who checked out and began mocking and scoffing as soon as they heard the Bible mentioned? We offered them the challenge of providing a basis for their worldview, especially as it relates to laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and consistent morality. This is where we understood Bill to stand, and he demonstrated his willing rejection of the biblical and scientific evidences presented to him out of hand.
In all of that, the strategy was to hold up the Bible as our only inerrant revelation from the Creator God and our absolute authority. We rejected naturalism, challenging its foundation. We affirmed biblical creationism, pointing to its foundation. We never set the Bible aside. We preached the gospel to a broad audience.

Whether you liked the format or not, the audience was involved not only as hearers, but as those who asked questions. This fact alone makes the audience and the consideration of how to respond wisely a much more complicated issue. We care about each soul and how they receive the truths we share, seeking to do so in a God-honoring and wise way.

Role of Evidence


Many on both sides of the use of evidence have cast scorn upon the debate. The evidentialists wanted more. The “extreme presuppers” wanted less. We chose the middle in a desire to meet the two-pronged approach of Proverbs 26:4–5.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul uses the witnesses of the Resurrection as a possible confirmation to those he was reasoning with and points to prophetic fulfillment as an evidence. He used the actual physical evidence of witnesses rooted in the truths of the OT prophecies as an argument for the truthfulness of his claims. In his interactions with the Jews in the synagogues, Paul used the Scriptures to show how the events of the day were consistent with the Scriptures. For those who acknowledge God but need some correction in their thinking, we seek to explain the physical world in light of the Scriptures to provide a reasonable answer.

When Paul “reasoned in the synagogues” or “reasoned from the Scriptures,” he was showing how what the Bible said was consistent with the evidence of the life of Jesus in the recent past. This is analogous to showing the consistency of evidence with what we would expect from the Bible. This approach was intended to persuade those who may acknowledge God but are not sure whether the Bible makes sense. These are people God may be drawing, and offering them a reasonable explanation alongside the hope of the gospel may be what the Holy Spirit uses to bring them to salvation (1 Peter 3:15). Also, there are many Christians who also needed to hear this message to assure them in their faith.

How to use evidence found in or rooted in the Scriptures is a challenging question for those who call themselves presuppositionalists (as addressed below). As a ministry, AiG is dedicated to never divorcing any argument from the truth of God’s Word whether those arguments are epistemological, physical, historical, or theological. Apart from God’s character and what He has revealed to us in His Word, the universe does not make sense. Interpreting the evidence in light of God’s Word is the only way to make sense of God’s world.

Answer/Don’t Answer


One of the most helpful things I have learned regarding biblical apologetics is the Answer/Don’t Answer strategy (A/DA) derived from Proverbs 26:4–5. I was introduced to this concept by Dr. Jason Lisle who calls Dr. Greg Bahnsen his teacher in the discipline of presuppositional apologetics. I am indebted to both men for my understanding of this issue, as well as men like Sye Ten Bruggencate.

Ken and AiG have been accused of not being presuppositional enough and of blending evidential arguments with our presuppositionalism in a way that sullies the proclamation of the glorious gem of the gospel. We see the debate strategy as an implementation of the A/DA strategy promoted by Bahnsen and Lisle, my two main teachers. Maybe they would take exception. The heart of an evidential argument is to use that argument apart from the truths of Scripture to convince someone of a position by appealing to their reason apart from the truths of God’s Word.

We agree that this form of argumentation alone is inadequate and unbiblical. Starting at 23:30 in the debate, Ken drove this point home with predictions from the Scriptures applied to the world God created. He had already offered the “answer the fool” by stating that Bill has no basis for using the uniformity of nature and logic within his worldview. He then moved on to talk about the “don’t answer” aspect by showing how the biblical worldview makes sense and how the examples of the one race of humanity and the created kinds predictions are consistent with what we observe in creation. All of these explanations were solidly rooted in the truths of Scripture.

Ken repeatedly pointed out the failure of the naturalistic worldview to account for reason and the inherent conflict of the worldviews being presented—21 times according to my analysis of the transcript. (I have documented these and posted them on another page for your evaluation.) Whether this number or form qualifies as a presuppositional approach I leave to the reader to determine.

A Critique of the Critique


Having dealt with some of the general ideas, let me turn to the article by Jon Speed. I appreciate Jon’s opening remarks and commendations. I also appreciate his willingness to critique the debate knowing that he would be criticized for doing so. We knew the debate would bring criticism, and we hope to learn from those critiques that bring a scriptural rebuke or exhortation. There were a few errors of fact in the piece (e.g., 600 tickets were sold, not 900) and a few interpretations that I am unsure of (e.g., I have no idea what Jon means by saying that creationists “won” the Scopes trial), but I will focus on the main criticisms here.
Jon claims that

In Ham’s introductory remarks he refers to scientists who are Creationists.  While this is encouraging to Christians, it does not prove anything.  Francis Crick, half of the brain trust that mapped DNA and a Nobel prize winner, believed in transpermia, the idea that alien life forms (think E.T.) “seeded” the universe with the building blocks for human life (see his book, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature published by Simon and Schuster in 1981).  What reputable scientists believe about origins does not prove its viability otherwise transpermia would be widely taught in public schools, and for the most part, it has not been.  We do not believe in Creationism because the guy who invented the MRI believed in it.  If he believed in transpermia, would you believe that?  We do not need to create a baseball trading card mentality in apologetics in order to score points. If there was not ONE accomplished scientist who was also a Creationist it would have no bearing on the truthfulness of creationism.  To start with this worst of evidentialist arguments started Ham on a bad foot.

This whole paragraph is a straw man of Ken’s use of this point in the debate. Ken never said this proved God’s existence or that the biblical creation model was the only one—he used it as a confirmation of his assertion that the Bible is truth and as a refutation of Nye’s claim that evolution is necessary. Ken turned the mirror to Bill to show him how silly his argument looked. Bill used the no-true-Scotsman fallacy and Ken pointed out the foolishness of his argument. Bill’s repeated bald assertion that creationists can’t be real scientists is false. That was the main goal of using this point in the presentation, not to say that you should believe it because Dr. Jones believes it. We knew Nye would bring this up and we attempted to head him off at the pass, employing the Answer/Don’t Answer strategy: Ken answered his objection by showing him the examples that disprove his objection based on his own foolish thinking; then Ken told him he can’t even understand science or do science apart from God, God is essential for science:

Think about it. When they’re doing observational science using the scientific method they have to assume the laws of logic, they have to assume the laws of nature, they have to assume the uniformity of nature. I mean think about it. If the universe came about by natural process where did the laws of logic come from? Did they just pop into existence? Are we in a stage now where we have only half logic? So you see I have a question for Bill Nye: How do you account for the laws of logic and laws of nature from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of God?”

I have to disagree with Jon that affirming the Bible (God’s Word) as our starting point and showing how reality is consistent with our foundation is the worst of evidential arguments. As Ken stated, it is ultimately the Bible’s description, not any particular scientist’s description that makes it true. The Bible is the authority we look to as we consider our origins.

No-true-presupper Fallacy


Let’s try a test. Ten of you who are reading this blog please write a definition of presuppositional apologetics that addresses the following: the exact nature of man with respect to his ability to reason in light of Romans 1­–2 (mediated versus immediate knowledge of God); the role of evidence including how biblical and extrabiblical evidences should be used when the audience includes unbelievers of different degrees of active rebellion; which aspects of the gospel are essential to be communicated; under what circumstances and topics to agree to a public debate; exactly when and how to employ the A/DA strategy. I trust you are likely of the Reformed camp, so we will set aside the exact role of the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. I think we might be shocked at how many differences within the camp come to light through an exercise like this, and it would surely be a healthy topic to pursue for our mutual edification.

My aim is to get you to think about who is the gatekeeper of who is and is not a presuppositionalists and what argument structures are acceptable. We already know the camp is divided between Bahnsen, Frame, and others (I will leave Clark out of this one). So, who gets to claim the label and protect the brand? Which sett (kilt pattern) will be the standard worn by the general?

“You might think you are a presupper, but no true presupper would have done it the way you did it.”
Jon acknowledges that Ken stated the presuppositional nature of his argument, but says that Ken failed as a consistent presuppositionalist by not staying true to the argument (he showed his gun, but never fired it). In fact, Jon claims that Ken started “with this worst of evidentialist arguments” by saying that the evidence we see in the world is consistent with what God has revealed in Scripture (as I described above).

However, Ham did not stick with this line of argumentation and this is why he did not mop the floor with Nye.  Some outspoken believers have suggested that Ham lost this debate and I would suggest that this is the reason why. If you think “mop the floor” is too strong of a term to use of an opponent, let me remind you that the purpose of a debate is to win and if you do not think you can then perhaps you should rethink your position.

First, neither of these points are supported with a scriptural backing. We could play a game of “my passage can beat up your passage” (as was the case on one thread of discussion I was involved in), but the whole counsel of God provides us with examples where prophets pronounced sharp words of rebuke and calls for gentleness and patience. I bet you can quote five examples on the harsh side, so consider Paul’s words to the Colossians: “Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time. Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one” (Colossians 4:5–6). Or Paul’s command that “a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.”  As I described above, the audience was much broader than Bill Nye. Was Ken’s approach sinful or a matter of preference and perceived inconsistency?

Secondly, I think Ken did stick with his line of argumentation, using the A/DA strategy repeatedly and never setting aside the authority of Scripture. May I humbly suggest that there is a reasonable range of approaches to a debate such as this one that can still fall within the presuppositional camp. If I am in error, I truly seek your biblical correction and a clear set of guidelines to let me know if I can be a part of the club or not. If not, I will work on making a new sign for our clubhouse.

After calling Ken’s approach blasphemous and unscriptural, Jon claims that, “when Ham asks the (apparently) rhetorical question of Nye regarding one technological advance using molecules to man evolution, he asks the wrong question.  Who cares?  What if he could?  Would that send Ham on his way back home?  Better debaters than Nye can point to several.”

If this is the case, I would ask Jon to provide such an example. No one on staff at AiG has been able to identify one. If we are in error, we would like to be corrected so we don’t make this foolish mistake in front of someone who can answer it. We have made this claim many times in the past and have never received an answer form an evolutionist. If I may, what Ken was doing here was showing Nye how his thinking leads him to a foolish position (answering the fool according to his folly). If you say that evolution is essential for technology, put up or shut up, Bill! Bill was silent on the matter and provided no refutation.
Jon continues:

Around the 53:00 point, Ham makes a case for the Book of Genesis as the record that God has given for origins.  Here, he stumbles into the presuppositional argument as most Christians do by referring to the Word of God as the authority.  This has always been the strength of AIG’s ministry—it’s commitment to the Word of God as the only reliable source on origins.  He ought to be applauded for that.  My family owes him much in this regard.  What I believe is missing from Ham’s presentation in this debate is a Scripturally and logically consistent argument, that if held to resolutely, would have exposed Nye’s arguments as patently foolish.  It would have also shown that Biblical Christianity owns the argument on origins and that nothing else should be taught in any school because it is a lie.

This is where I point out the harshness of words. To say that Ken “stumbled” into a presuppositional defense of the faith is unkind at best and slanderous at worst. I don’t know Jon’s heart, so I will ask him to clarify. Again, I disagree with Jon’s definition of what it means to make a scripturally and logically consistent argument when Ken mentioned the foundational nature of God’s Word countless times during the debate and challenged Nye’s foundation multiple times.

And for the record, AiG has never promoted the idea that biblical creation should be taught in public schools. Teaching origins, teaching in general, is the parents’ responsibility, not the government’s. Currently, the religion of humanism is the dominant religion in the classrooms of America, and the teaching of evolution as truth is a symptom of a much broader disease. This is a shame and Ken called for this to be changed several times during the debate: “Actually, we're told that if you teach creation in the public schools, that's teaching religion; if you teach evolution, that's science. And I'm going to say, ‘Wait a minute.  Actually, the creation model here based upon the Bible, observational science confirms this.’ This is what you observe. You don't observe this tree. [Visuals displayed] Actually, it’s the public school textbooks that are teaching a belief, imposing it on students and they need to be teaching them observational science to understand the reality of what's happening.” This has been a clarion call from our ministry since I began there eight years ago. Ken and I wrote a chapter in one of the New Answers Books if you are interested.

After rebuking Ken for not confronting Bill more directly about attacking God’s Word, we read, “Ham would have done well to at least follow the example of Nye during the question and answer period of holding his feet to the fire.” Really? Ken would have done well to abandon the agreed-upon format of the debate to stoop to the level of his ungodly opponent’s emotional and contract-breaking tactic? I am not so sure about that. May I suggest that Ken kept his agreement and honored his word to stay within the format. This was a cowardly debate trick on Nye’s part and did not fit the format. Had there been a cross examination, I agree that this would have been appropriate. Would it have honored the person who asked the question to skip it to challenge Bill?

Jon also claims that his “respect for Ken Ham’s ministry is enormous” and I will take him at his word. But I must ask, how can you have enormous respect for someone who just gave a platform for millions of people to watch a blasphemous fool spout his nonsense? Is a critique of such damning proportion really commensurate with enormous respect? I sincerely do not understand this point.
Jon closes his piece with the following rebuke and exhortation:

However, in a debate forum the materials that AIG has produced cannot win debates.  They can encourage Christians.  But they cannot reveal the atheistic worldview as foolish as long as the evidential approach takes their unbelief seriously.  In a debate you may have the opportunity to present the gospel.  But the gospel is a jewel and ought to be presented as such.  Presuppositional apologetics gives the gospel an opportunity to be presented with all of the pomp and circumstance of the crown jewels.  Evidential apologetics provides a background that is not worthy of the gospel in a debate setting. My hope and prayer is that AIG will pursue the presuppositional approach as they confront unbelievers and use the evidential material for the encouragement of believers.

If Jon is talking about the “materials” that AiG produces and promotes, he would find Bahnsen and Lisle among those materials as well as other articles that do just what he is espousing Ken should have done in the debate. He may be ignorant of these facts, so all I can do is ask for clarification. We can sell you a copy of the Bahnsen-Stein debate if you need one—it is great stuff and a fine example of how a Christian might approach such a debate.

Until we have a clearer definition and practical methodology of “evidential” and “presuppositional” apologetics, I don’t know that we can go much further. Also, the debate targeted a mixed audience and I think we did a bit of both confronting the unbelievers and encouraging the believers. Let’s all work together to understand this point. I don’t know how to confront the unbeliever using the A/DA without using some evidence from the world we live in and share. I know he is borrowing my lumber, but the lumber is evidence.

Point Taken


Regardless of how criticism is offered, we do well to consider the points of our critics. Ken presents his materials in a public forum and critique should come in similar manner. Part of my job is to gather the criticisms (my new nickname is Dartboard) and analyze those that hit the mark. I will be sharing the things I have learned with Ken and offering him counsel. Not to mention, much of the criticism is on me in light of my involvement in the debate prep and follow-up.

There are several points at which Ken could have gone to Scripture more directly and other points which I will bring to bear on our post-debate discussions. When talking about secular scientists, he could have done better to talk about their laboratory methodology as commendable, his obvious intent in the scope of all of his points. However, let’s cut a little slack to a brother who was on the spot in front of millions attempting to honor Jesus Christ with every word, thought, and action. I am doubtful I would have been a suitable ambassador in the eyes of most of the judges, either. I know I am not worthy in God’s eyes. As Jon noted, we can at least commend Ken’s focus on proclaiming the gospel to millions.

I will consider carefully the points about holding to a more consistent argument from the “extreme presuppositional” approach, but I will also question whether it is always wisest to dash your opponents head on his faulty foundation until his brains fall out in front of the rest of the audience. We may be at an impasse on that point.

Riddle Me This . . .


Let me offer some questions for reflection in light of all of this dustup. Hopefully these will help us all think through the issues.

Did Ken fail to do certain things in the debate that are Scripturally mandated, or did he not do them to the extent you would have preferred?

When you say someone is using an evidential argument, what exactly do you mean by that?

Was there a point in the debate where Ken denied the Bible or God as his foundation?

What role does wisdom and godly counsel play in choosing how we interact with various audiences on apologetic topics?

What aspects of this discussion may be sinful for you for conscience sake, but allowable for another believer without causing division?

When you offer criticisms, are you offering them in a spirit of love and gentleness for the edification of all hearing (Ephesians 4:29; Galatians 6:1)?

If Baptists can minster alongside Presbyterians and post-millers alongside pre-millers, can “extreme presuppers” minister alongside the “soft presuppers” without being called promoters of blasphemy?

Did AiG promote blasphemy and use an unscriptural strategy in the debate? (If so, this is a serious error that must be dealt with.)

I have already acknowledged the problems with the format, so I will do what I can to relay that information. I will strive to grow to be more like Christ in all that I do, especially as a part of a ministry that claims to represent Him. Pray for me. Pray for us. Pray for unity centered on the truth. May our Lord Jesus Christ be glorified in all of this.


  1. Thank you for this article, Roger. I concur with every word of it.

    It is academic to comment that "Jason/Sye/Paul/JoeBlow would have done better". Despite their current profiles, it is unlikely that Bill Nye would have entertained debating Jason or Sye. He certainly wouldn't have considered debating me - and, even if he did, I am well aware that I would not have done better than Ken, who did a fine job, in my opinion. Ken knows the areas in retrospect where he could have answered better. Speaking just for myself, I know that, in the pressure of the moment, I would have made far more mistakes. But the real point that I am making here is that Ken has spent a lifetime pushing the presuppositional argument; where do you think I first heard it from? He has been high profile and Godly in his performance for decades. It is that hard-won reputation that meant that Nye was prepared to debate him. To repeat - Ken's long-standing reputation was hard-won. I, for one, am glad that he is where he is, and presenting the Gospel in the way that he does.

  2. Thanks for sharing your views. I actually have a matter I wanted to bring to your attention but didn't know how to get a hold of you directly. I'll try to guess your address and start a dialogue.

  3. uh Roger do you even know what would the "uniformity of nature" actually is? you do realize that no one actually uses the uniformity of nature to justify induction right? it is SUFFICIENT but no NECESSARY for such a function

  4. Roger said:
    “Creation is the only” scientific way to look at the universe that actually corresponds with reality because it is the only view that starts with the right foundation."
    There is a problem here: Creation does not correspond with reality.

    If it did, there would be no instances of this happening:
    Where Danny Faulkner asserts that god "miraculously" sped up the speed of light in order to account for us being able to see stars millions and more light years away in a universe that's supposed to be young.

    "The 8,000-year-long BCP chronology appears to be correctly crossmatched, and there is no evidence that bristlecone pines can put on more than one ring per year. The best approach for collapsing this chronology, one that takes into the account the evidence from C-14 dates, is one that factors the existence of migrating ring-disturbing events. Much more must be learned about this phenomenon before this hypothesis can be developed further."

    Why, if all the evidence points to there being only one ring laid down per year, is there any need to "compress" the age of the grove of trees?

    It goes against what you people have already decided to believe.

    (ie. that statement of faith that you creationist groups take which says, in one form or another: that no evidence, real or imagined, can be valid if it contradicts the bible.)

    That is the OPPOSITE of the scientific method, not the basis FOR it.