Bill Nye and Ken Ham Debate -- February 4th, 2014

On January 2nd, Answers in Genesis announced they will be hosting a debate on February 4th, 2014 at 7PM between Bill Nye "The Science Guy," the former host of a popular children's science program on PBS and Ken Ham, founder of answersingenesis.org and the Creation Museum located in Petersburg, KY.  The agreed topic of the debate will be:

"Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” 

Bill will be advocating the position of evolution as a scientific and authoritative explanation of human origins, while Ken will be defending the Biblical creation account of origins found in the book of Genesis.  Quoting Ken, "I hope to show Mr. Nye and our debate audience that observational science confirms the scientific accuracy of the Genesis account of origins, not evolution."  To be clear, Ken is not referring to micro evolution and variation within species, which is observable science, but the theory of macro evolution as the only explanation of human origins.

Here at Reason for the Faith, we believe it is highly disingenuous to call this a debate between science and religion: this is clearly a debate between two differing worldviews on the topic of origins.  One claims that "In the beginning God..." while the other claims in the beginning matter + chance + time.  There are only three basic options when it comes to origins: either everything came from nothing, an Intelligent Designer created, or physical matter is eternal.  The first defies logic and is not scientific -- even if there was an "energy" that is not nothing, the second is logical but is not scientific, the last also defies logic and is philosophically self-defeating (infinite regress lacking a "first cause").  So, you tell us which makes the most logical sense. 

The bottom line is both views make claims which cannot be scientifically tested or verified.  In short, both views require significant elements of faith.  Pseudo-scientists are those who attempt to call theories and consensus of the alleged majority evidence and fact, but in elementary school, we learn that theories which cannot be verified by observable scientific evidence cannot be categorized as a scientific fact.  So why is macro-evolution exempted?  Not all of reality is scientifically verifiable, so when that is the case, don't call it science.  If everyone were being honest, they would acknowledge that much of how a person chooses to interpret observational, verifiable scientific data (that which can be tested, verified, and repeated in a predictable way) is shaped by that person's worldview.  If you don't want to believe in God, you're unlikely to see any evidence for Him.

It is highly improbable that this debate will move the position of either debater, but it may challenge those who view the debate, to reconsider the reliability, evidence, and legitimacy of both worldviews.  Tickets to the live debate hosted at the Creation Museum went on sale on January 6th and sold out within ~2 minutes for the 900 seat lecture hall.  Based on recent social media posts, AiG is apparently looking into other venue options based on the overwhelming interest in attendance; a live streaming option looks like it will also be available.  Reason for the Faith will watch the debate with interest and post our opinion of the dialog, which we hope proves to be highly respectful and well represented by both the debaters.

Are you planning to watch the debate?  Is this type of event helpful?  We hope to hear your thoughts as this event unfolds in the upcoming weeks.

Science within the Bible

Did you know the Bible makes several scientific claims which went against the grain of contemporary understanding? Even more impressive is the fact that, over the years, the scientific community has validated that those claims were accurate. How could this be? The Bible was written by some 40 different authors over a span of around 1,600 years (for more on why we can trust the accuracy of the Biblical accounts, see our post on Why only 66 books?). It seems clear that there must have been some sort of divine revelation given to the authors. To make it even more obvious, there are no scientific claims made in the Bible which have proven to be false. Even under the heavy scrutiny of scoffers over the centuries, the text of the canonical books of the Bible continues to show evidence that God not only exists, but has given us a peek into His omniscient realities.

Let’s first look at just 10 examples of science in the Bible that would have been impossible for the authors to have correctly understood during their lives. Then we will look at how God’s creation perfectly coincides with certain laws of science.

1)      Job 26:7 describes Earth as free floating. How could this have been known without revelation? The majority of those concerned with this issue during “Biblical” times believed Earth was carried on the back of an animal of some sort.

2)      Isaiah 40:22 and Proverbs 8:27 describe the Earth as round. The accepted thought during the time these were written was that the earth was flat. It was these verses that convinced Christopher Columbus that he could sail around the world.

3)      Job 38:16 and Jonah 2:6 explain that the oceans have mountains and valleys as well as springs. These facts were not discovered until the 20^th century. Psalm 8:8 also explains that there are paths in the ocean. This convinced Matthew Maury, an officer in the Navy, to study if there were paths in the ocean. He discovered many of them and wrote the first book on oceanography which is still referenced today.

4)      In Genesis 17:12 God commands Abraham to circumcise male babies on the 8^th day. In Genesis 21:4 we see that Abraham circumcised Isaac on the 8^th day and that God commanded him to do so there as well. Why? The Bible does not give reason and no one knew until recently. Vitamin K, when in the liver produces an element called prothrombin.  Prothrombin and vitamin K, are the 2 most needed elements for blood to properly coagulate. On the 8^th day they are at their highest levels. In fact day 8 is the only day that prothrombin reaches over 100% the normal level under normal conditions.

5)      Job 40:15-24 perfectly describes a sauropod dinosaur. God called it “Behemoth” and said it was the largest of all creatures (which referred to land animals) He made. He said it ate plants, had strength in its hips, had a tail like a cedar tree, strong bones, and explained that even when a river gushes into its mouth it is not bothered. The “fossil record” has shown sauropods as being the largest land animal that has ever lived.

6)      Hebrews 11:3 explains that the things we can see are made out of things not visible. We now know that everything is made from cells, molecules, and or atoms. Also, Genesis 2:7 and 3:19 state that we are made from the ground or “dust of the earth.” Scientist have discovered that our body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements, all of which are found in the earth.

7)      Until the 1600s there was no understanding of the hydrologic cycle of the Earth, however, the Bible spells it out with these verses; Vapors rising in Psalm 135:7 and Job 36:27, water in the clouds in Job 26:8 and Job 37:11, falling rain in Job 36:28, Isaiah 55:10, and Ecclesiastes 1:7 even speaks of how the water returns to the seas thus completing the cycle.

8)      Leviticus 17:11; 14 explains that the source of health and life in our body is blood. Up until 150 years ago medical protocol was to bleed someone out when they were sick in order to try and rid the body of their illness. This lead to premature deaths in countless incidents, including George Washington. We now know to save the blood, even to the point of giving donated blood to keep one alive.

9)      Isaac Newton discovered that light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. We know this as a rainbow (ROYGBIV). Job 38:24 claims that light can be divided. Newton’s discovery was obviously made centuries after the Bible was written.

10)   The Bible explains that all humans are descendants of one woman, Eve, who lived somewhere in or near the Middle East. In 1987 a team at the University of California at Berkeley published a study comparing mitochondrial DNA of 147 people from 5 different world locations. They concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor. Further studies have shown that everyone apparently has the same female ancestor and that she probably originated in the area of where Europe, Asia, and Africa meet. The name given to this one woman is “Mitochondrial Eve.”

Let's take a deeper look into how the account of God’s creation coincides with key “Laws of Science.” Here, we will give a very brief explanation of these “laws” and how they support the accounts found in the Bible. It is important to understand these laws are widely affirmed throughout the scientific community:

The Law of Biogenesis says that life can only come from life and cannot come from non-life through spontaneous generation. It is interesting to note that most evolutionist will not claim to know how the first living organism came to be. Their theories mostly begin with life in existence. The Law of Biogenesis creates a huge problem for them but coincides with life being created from God, who has always been alive. While on the topic of life it should also be recognized that the Bible explains each kind of animal can only bring forth the same kind. Even though there are multiple theories concerning macro-evolution the only observable conclusion science can give matches this claim. The Bible also claims that humans were made to be different from other animals, which of course, can be observed as we live with conscience and a higher level of intelligence.

The Laws of Thermodynamics, or life of heat energy and how said energy operates. The 1^st Law of Thermodynamics explains that the total amount of energy and matter is constant, always has been constant, and always will be constant. In laymen’s terms, energy cannot be created or destroyed, but has always and will always only transfer from one kind to the other. In the creation account we read that after God created humans His creation was complete and finished. (Genesis 2:2) All space, time, and matter were made and would only be used and transferred from that point on. 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics explains that in a closed system (which the Universe is) once useful energy is used it transfers to a non-usable form, and thus leads from order to disorder, or organization to disorganization. This is known as entropy. The universe, and the earth, are both captive to the laws of entropy. Nothing will get better on its own but will instead, break down to less complexity. This law is understood so universally that the scientific community has concluded the universe will experience “heat death” once all usable energy has been used. The 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics creates another, entirely different challenge for evolutionist as their theory claims that things have gone from disorder to order and from simple to complex. On the other hand, it coincides with the Bible which claims that the heavens and the earth are withering away and decaying. (Hebrews 1:10-11, Isaiah 51:6, and Psalm 102:25-26.)

While science outside of the Bible supports design, and thus supports the conclusion that the world was created by God, it is also clear that science inside the Bible shows divinity and evidence for our Creator.

What is your response to these realities?

“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, 
written by those who were inspired. 
I study the Bible daily.”  ~Sir Isaac Newton 

When does the life of a human being start?

An anxious couple walks into a room with several LCD monitors, sophisticated equipment, and a medical chair. The couple is greeted by a technician who has the nervous mother have a seat. The tech squirts a blue colored lubricant and begins to probe about. Assuming all is as it should be, a steady staccato rhythm of “squish-squish-squish-squish” is heard and begins to register on the heart monitor. Next, what seems like an indiscernible image appears on the screen, moving about. The nervous father begins squinting at the screen trying to make sense of the image. The technician begins pointing out anatomy to help the onlooking parents pick out the tiny features of their 16 week old baby. There is a leg, the other leg, a foot, fingers, there is the baby's  abdomen, the head, the heart, etc. It is a miraculous sight and one the technicians will be quick to tell you they never cease to be amazed by. For these expecting parents, this is a joyous time and the last thing on their mind is the possibility of an abortion.

But what if the situation were different?  What if the occasion where not such a joyous one? What if, for example, we were talking about a single teenaged mother who hasn’t told her parents about her promiscuity which resulted in pregnancy.  She is not ready or perhaps able to provide for her baby. What if the baby were to test positive for a physical or mental handicap like Down Syndrome? What about women who are now pregnant because they were the victim of rape or how about the mother whose life could be jeopardized if she decides to continue with the pregnancy? What if it was your own wife or relative?  Is there a situation in which the termination of a pregnancy is justifiable?

For perfectly good reasons, this is an emotionally charged topic. It is a weighty issue, so at the risk of being controversial, we are going to present a few thoughts to consider regarding the subject of abortion. In presenting these thoughts, we hope to challenge readers, regardless of their persuasion on the topic, to set hostilities aside and consider carefully the scientific and logical outworking of their position on this important issue.

We are familiar with the scientific terms that reference the stages of development for the unborn: first as a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, then fetus that grows until ultimately ready to exit the womb.  While these are perfectly good and legitimate terms to describe the development of an infant, many advocates of pro-choice insist on referring to an unborn baby in these ways.  If we call it like it is, the rational is simple to understand:  calling a developing baby a "fetus" when considering an abortion helps soften the psychological and visceral reaction that would be invoked by simply calling this life a "baby."  But the question at hand is:  When does the life of a human being start?   Is there a point when termination of life is not synonymous with the destruction of a human being?  We feel that while there are clearly philosophical, ethical, and theological implications, this is largely a  scientific question.

Those who advocate the right of abortion also play word games by choosing the term "pro-choice" instead of pro-abortion for the same reasons as referring to the unborn as a fetus.  The cause is based on a position of women’s rights; the claim being that it is the woman's body and therefore the woman's right to choose.  The difference, however, is the premise that this is a choice about the body of the mother or that of a scientifically distinct human entity, regardless of the fact that it inhabits the womb.  Because the human characteristics of a developing fetus become increasingly difficult to deny, the majority of those supporting abortion only support it during the early terms of pregnancy.  But does that make a difference scientifically? A common basis is that since the fetus is attached to the mother's body and cannot survive apart from the mother’s body, as such, it is an inseparable part of her body and therefore the mother has a right to choose. To further appease the conscience, the question has been raised around whether the fetus can feel pain or not. Further, there are those who believe that during the embryonic stage, the human baby develops with features likened to that of animals and, as such, are something less than human. This latter point was a popular position about 10+ years ago but has been almost entirely abandoned as our understanding of fetal development has improved and this has been debunked. Pro-choice advocates also appeal to the circumstantial difficulties and messy issues like those mentioned above (rape, incest, etc) in which the mother has an extenuating situation and should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. So with a few of these questions in mind, let’s consider the following points:

First of all,  the issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin.  It is important to be clear that there is a huge difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "life" and a human zygote, embryo, or fetus that is an actual human being. Abortion is the destruction of the latter. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings.  They are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.  They do not possess the necessary genetic makeup to form a human being.  However, the human embryonic organism that is formed at fertilization has all of the necessary genetic material to be a human being -- calling it just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells" is not only disingenuous but scientifically inaccurate.   There is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being that begins to grow immediately. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It's an actual human being with the potential to grow bigger and develop all it's capacities.

A few questions for the pro-abortion advocate:

1) Is a developing embryo or fetus alive?  If it is alive, what happens once the living embryo is aborted?  If something living is destroyed, it is usually called death.  If the claim is the fetus is not yet alive in the same way as say a newborn, then can we give an example of something non-living that grows and develops in complexity into the form of anything, much less a human being?  I know of no such example.

2) Is the fetus a human being?  If not, in what way is it inhuman and at what point does it become a human being?  18 days following conception, the human fetus develops a heartbeat. By day 22, the head and abdomen have formed and after only 5 weeks the human brain, backbone, spinal cord, and digestive system. By the end of the second month, the baby has eyes, lips, nose, mouth, tongue, ears, and is moving about.

These are just two fundamental questions because, if the fetus is alive and a human being, then no matter how you slice it, an abortion is the destruction of a living human being.  Why is destroying a human being once it exits the birth canal called infanticide, but if it is destroyed as a fetus, it is merely a medical procedure likened to the removal of a tumor.

In many ways, we are dealing with  willing denial of scientific reality. It is simply a matter of convenience, in many cases, so people invent ways of describing the unborn as less than human to mitigate the reality of the destruction of a human being. If the justification is a fetus can be terminated because it can’t survive outside of the womb, explain why that is different from a new born baby that cannot feed or care for itself either. How would the hypothetical lack of pain felt by the fetus during an abortion procedure make it any more justifiable.  The same reality would apply I you were to shoot a person in the back of the head.  That person would also feel no pain...but the lack of pain doesn't justify murder.

Beyond this, who among the unborn can defend their case?  They clearly cannot voice their will to live or their right to choose life . Unlike a soldier sent to battle and armed to fight for his freedom, the baby has no defense. It is amazing to me that so many who will argue for the choice of mothers to abort their baby fail to consider the hypocrisy of their failure to recognize the right to life of the unborn.  These are the same people who advocate for the rights and humane treatment of animals, yet argue passionately against the use of capital punishment for criminals convicted of heinous acts, but with equal passion, will defend the right to murder an unborn human being. Is the life of a baby no more valuable than the life of an animal or a criminal?

Mass murder is nothing new: the Chinese under Moa Ze-Dong murdered 49-78 million people, the USSR under Stalin killed 23 million, the WWII Holocaust saw 6-12 million Jews and others systematically exterminated, the Cambodian killing fields were the grave of 2 million, and the list goes on and on - and all in the last century. But in the USA alone, approximately 3,000 babies are aborted each day (about the same number as died in the 9/11 attack) or 1.3 million aborted annually. If we take into account the years since Rowe Vs. Wade, there have been more than 50 million abortions, not counting chemical and non-disclosed abortions.

What about cases where a mother’s life is in jeopardy if the pregnancy is not terminated? While this argument may have had merit at one time on an exception basis, since medical professionals and institutions are required by law to protect the life of their patients, modern medicine has made this argument almost entirely moot. Most doctors now agree that in few, if any, cases is abortion medically necessary to save a mother’s life. Generally, if the mother is endangered to this extent, aborting the baby is will make no difference in the outcome. It is estimated that fewer than 2% of all abortions are medically necessary, and even that number is debatable. In cases of incest and rape, I can only say that if a baby is conceived in this way, what is to be gained by adding to the tragedy the act of murder of an innocent human being? I recognize this is an extremely difficult and emotionally damaging situation for all of the victims. I am not indifferent to this reality nor am I suggesting they be further victimized. It is simply my belief that two wrongs do not make a right. Keep in mind, the baby had no control over the circumstances of its conception. I believe only Christ can give a person the strength to endure such a challenging ordeal.

I believe the most compelling example, from the Christian vantage point, on abortion is made clear to us in the gospel narrative when we are told of the birth of Jesus – the Christ child incarnate. We often think of the miracle of Christ and his birth as having it’s beginning at the scene of a lowly manger in Bethlehem, but we forget that 9 months earlier, Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary. The miracle of God taking on the form of a man, the incarnation, took place at the moment of conception. The baby was given the name Jesus long before his birth. The Psalms proclaim that God has knit each of us together in our mother’s womb and on that note, I pray we might consider every unborn baby as a life precious in the site of God.