Ken Ham explains the difference between science and belief

[Jack]

Ken Ham helps us understand the difference between scientific research and fundamental Christian belief.

Recently, a book titled What’s the Least I can Believe and Still Be a Christian? was brought to my attention. After reading it, I wondered if I should write a book titled, What’s the Most I can Believe and still not be a Christian?!

We are seeing a plethora of books and other resources permeating the church these days that advocate compromising God’s Word in Genesis, on hell, “gay marriage,” abortion, and salvation. I thought it would be important to bring this particular new book to your attention. I asked AiG researcher Steve Golden to write a report for me, which I have reprinted below.

I believe it’s important to make the church as a whole aware of materials being written by professing Christians that compromise the authority of the Word of God. This latest publication seeks to help Christians reconcile Scripture with controversial issues such as the idea of evolution, homosexual behavior, and salvation in other religions. The very title says a lot about the book’s message! Written by a pastor, this book is another example of how even the church is at fault for the attack on the authority of God’s Word.

Martin Thielen, the senior pastor of Brentwood United Methodist Church in Brentwood, Tennessee, has written a new book titled What’s the Least I Can Believe and Still Be a Christian? Pastor Thielen says in the preface that he will list 10 things Christians do not need to believe (what he calls “closed-minded faith”) and then 10 things Christians do need to believe, which he summarizes, “They need to believe in Jesus—his life, teachings, example, death, and resurrection.” Pastor Thielen encourages churches to use his book for small group Bible studies, and indeed there are some churches doing just that. He’s even made the study leader’s guide available online.

Pastor Thielen hits on creationism early in his book, writing that while he respects creationists, creationism “has scientific problems. It denies virtually every branch of science” (p. 16). He continues, “Not only does this literalist approach have scientific problems; it also has biblical problems. Contrary to what this view teaches, the Bible is not a science book” (p. 16). Pastor Thielen’s bottom line? “Theistic evolution is a perfectly acceptable Christian belief” (p. 18). He even states his own position:

Yes, I believe in creationism. And yes, I believe in evolution. I believe God created the world, but I believe God created through evolution. (p. 17)

While we at Answers in Genesis acknowledge that one’s view on the origin of man is not a salvation issue, we do say that it is an authority issue. Believing in theistic evolution as a Christian means you reject the authority of God’s Word, because the creation account in Genesis teaches a literal six-day creation (Genesis 1). Even the idea of “theistic evolution” is problematic, because evolutionary ideas were created to explain a world without God. If we approach Scripture from the standpoint that it teaches absolute truth, then every branch of science must be interpreted in light of biblical teaching—not the other way around.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/bl...u-can-believe/ (emphasis added)

So according to Ham all natural evidence must be interpreted in light of the preconceived conclusion that the Christian god exists and that the Bible is infallible. Any evidence that does not support that view or may conflict with it should be ignored or bastardized in such a way as to appear to support the Christian's assumptions.

creationist-method.jpg

[finder]

Ken Ham helps us understand the difference between scientific research and fundamental Christian belief.

What (emphasis added)

So according to Ham all natural evidence must be interpreted in light of the preconceived conclusion that the Christian god exists and that the Bible is infallible. Any evidence that does not support that view or may conflict with it should be ignored or bastardized in such a way as to appear to support the Christian's assumptions.

creationist-method.jpg

This is why you may have seen me in the past distance myself from "creationists." Yes, I use some of their info in debates at times but that is a learning experience for me more then an actual debate asserting a position. Sometimes even with the web I can't ask the right questions so debates help me grow and even learn new ideas.

Back to the point, the Bible is not intended to explain in scientific terms the message of God. If it were, then why would God call us to faith? This is why I do not understand exactly what the "creationist" movement is trying to accomplish. We can't prove God. Furthermore it is my belief that the infallible word of God isn't found in the "error free" translations and transliterations of his word through time for that is impossible on our part, being imperfect ourselves. But rather the infallible nature is in it's message and what it was sent forth to accomplish. It does divide the sheep from the goats.

[minorwork]

"...evolutionary ideas were created to explain a world without God." ~ Ken Ham. Such an easy target, Jack.

[Questatement]

So according to Ham all natural evidence must be interpreted in light of the preconceived conclusion that the Christian god exists and that the Bible is infallible. Any evidence that does not support that view or may conflict with it should be ignored or bastardized in such a way as to appear to support the Christian's assumptions.

You're just realizing this now?

Just flip a few words around and you have naturalistic science, its assumptions, and conflicting evidence being ignored or bastardized to support those assumptions... welcome to reality.

Let me guess your position, oh the horror of one assumption but the beauty of the other?

[Jack]

...naturalistic science, its assumptions, and conflicting evidence being ignored or bastardized to support those assumptions...

You'll need to provide examples of that happening. Science welcomes conflicting evidence, as long as it's properly testable and can be subjected to the scientific method. It's dishonest to claim that science ignores religious claims that conflict with science since those claims are not testable and are therefore irrelevant to science. Sorry, but science doesn't incorporate the methods Ham recommends.

[Senor Hoint]

Just flip a few words around and you have naturalistic science, its assumptions, and conflicting evidence being ignored or bastardized to support those assumptions... welcome to reality.

I wonder if you can come up with even one example of this happening.

[Questatement]

You'll need to provide examples of that happening. Science welcomes conflicting evidence, as long as it's properly testable and can be subjected to the scientific method. It's dishonest to claim that science ignores religious claims that conflict with science since those claims are not testable and are therefore irrelevant to science. Sorry, but science doesn't incorporate the methods Ham recommends.

What 'testable' are you referring to? Repeating the expansion of the known universe? Every shred of evidence related to origins can only be interpreted based on repeatable tests. These interpretation begins with assumptions to assist with ‘unraveling’ them.

The examples are limitless. Cyrogenics aside, cell structure is not viable past 10,000 years (upper limits 100,000) until a T-Rex thigh bone is accidentally broken and inside is soft tissue with viable cell structure.

Is the T-Rex now less than 10,000 years old? Nope, cell structure is now viable for up to 70 millions years.

Why?

Naturalistic assumptions. More 70 mya fossils are broken open, same results, and now we have a verification of this now repeatable, 'scientific' fact.

[Senor Hoint]

We determine fossil age by the ratio of radioactive isotopes and their decay products, though...

[Questatement]

Of which there are more assumptions.

In most cases, that at there are no preexisting daughter isotopes already present at the time of 'deposit.' Yet, this has been demonstrated to not be the case in all known cases where the deposit was of a verifiably known age (current lava flows for example).

[Questatement]

Also, I think a better title for this thread would be...

"Ken Ham explains the importance of the reliance of theistic-based science on biblical faith."

He's not even addressing naturalism per se, but a bastardized blend of the two (theistic evolution) of which, both fundamentalists and atheists should agree is bad science.

[Jack]

He's not even addressing naturalism per se, but a bastardized blend of the two (theistic evolution) of which, both fundamentalists and atheists should agree is bad science.

I grasped that, but in doing so he extolls Biblical literalism which in my opinion isn't any better.

Also, I think a better title for this thread would be...

"Ken Ham explains the importance of the reliance of theistic-based science on biblical faith."

What exactly is "theistic-based science"?

[Questatement]

What exactly is "theistic-based science"?

Applying the scientific method to evidence based on the assumption of a divine creation. In this case, the God of the bible or portions thereof.