Creationists damage Christianity (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-10)

So, we recently received an email stating that we're
damaging Christianity by ignoring science. OK. Now, we're going to examine that claim that
biblical creationists are damaging Christianity this week on Creation Magazine LIVE! Welcome to Creation Magazine LIVE! My name is Richard Fangrad. And I'm Matt Bondy.

This week we're going to spend the whole
show examining the claim that young earth creationists, or Biblical creationists, are
damaging Christianity because we ignore science. Yeah, ok, well that's quite a claim! But it's really 2 claims isn't it? Yes, that's right. Robert B from the US, he wrote in claiming
that creationists are harming Christianity, that's number 1, and secondly, that we're
ignoring science. Right, OK, well let's read what he wrote, it's not very
long, and then we'll respond to his claims.

He wrote, "You are damaging Christianity deeply. You think science is wrong just where you
need it to bewhich should light up the warnings in your brain. The concepts that you list as evidence are
areas you don't understand. Science primarily does not have opinions.

It has data; data that does not give a living ---- [and there
was a swearword there that we deleted out] a living [-----] what anyone thinks. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones does not prove
a young anything  and the scientists working on that material understand that where you don't You would all be well advised to go actually
get into a real science program (tho I doubt you could) and learn the material. ===> I did." OK. So he continues, "Considerthe percentage
of scientists who believe the Earth is young is smaller than the percentage of people who
would be clinically insane in the same population.

ALERT!! "I.E., In order to claim that there is a
debate at all, you will have to have more people on 'your side' of the debate than
the percentage of clinically insane. You don't. You have Kurt Wise disease. You are harming Christianity." OK! Alright, there're some pretty bold claims
there, and the reason we want to examine this on the show today is that there are Christians,
especially those who have gone through higher education, including most seminaries, who
would make similar claims.

Right. The claim is that, in order to take the Bible,
and especially Genesis, at face value (the way that we do as a ministry),
you need to reject science. And by rejecting modern science, biblical
creationists are harming Christianity because we appear to be anti-scientific. Anti-scientific, yeah.

Just want to point out (you probably picked
this up as well) the tone of this email. You likely noticed that includes kind of
an insulting, accusing tone. Now, not all people would have stated things
in the way that Robert did in his email to us. But we often see that same kind of tone
from people in the church who are convinced that the world is old.

And for those of you who do understand that
Genesis records a recent creation in 6 days, you might have had these kind of accusations
leveled at you as well. The idea is that we're anti-intellectual,
and it's only the low IQ, never finished high-school, country bumpkin that would ever
conclude that God created recently, in 6 days and there was a global flood. Right. And just to give another example of that,
we can play a portion of a radio show where William Lane Craig, who, by the way, has won
many debates arguing against atheists, but here he's commenting on a recent creation.

Listen to this. "Yes, I've seen a comparable statistic
that says that over 50% of evangelical pastors think that the world is less than 10,000 years old. Now when you think about that, Kevin, that
is just hugely embarrassing. That over half of our ministers really believe that
the universe is only around 10,000 years old.

This is just scientifically, it's nonsense,
and yet this is the view that the majority of our pastors hold. It's really quite shocking when you think
about it." OK, so again, the accusation is that it's
"nonsense", he says, to believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old, and that's
it's "embarrassing" and "shocking". And again, he's using those kinds of emotional
words and, really, the idea, the kind of flavour that comes across, is that pastors who believe
that, well  they're just out of touch with reality. It's just a completely ridiculous thing to think.

Yes, and he's disappointed that 50%
of pastors believe that. Well, I'm, kind of disappointed that it's
only 50 percent! Since the world really is less than 10,000
years old, based on simple deduction from the Word of God, what's really "shocking"
and "embarrassing" is that 50% of pastors think it's older! Right! Pastors are supposed to give instruction from
God's Word, and instruct that way. Now, we've made a lot of statements
here, in the last couple of minutes, that need further explanation, and we're going
to do exactly that after a short break. Did you know that the DNA code is itself governed
by another code known as the epigenetic code? This physical and chemical code determines
which genes are switched on.

Changes in this code can greatly alter an
organism without altering one letter of its DNA. For instance, scientists have managed to change
the coat colour in mice by feeding them a diet that switches off certain genes. Epigenetics poses new problems for evolution. For instance, a group of animals with a camouflaged
coat colour might be favoured in a particular environment, but if this coat colour is due
to epigenetics and not the actual DNA code, then the non-camouflaged animals would be
selected against in vain.

When the epigenetic modification is reset
by a diet change, natural selection is sent back to square one. The field of epigenetics, therefore, creates
problems for evolution and strongly points to a master programmer who invented the DNA
and epigenetic codes. To find out more from Creation Ministries
International, visit our website CREATION.Com. So, if you've just tuned in, this week we
are looking into accusations made against CMI, and really anyone who takes
God's Word at face value, understanding that God created recently.

Yes, and that's a big part of the response: what does
the Bible say about the age of the earth. Many people think that it doesn't say anything
about the age of the earth. And we'll deal with that in a few minutes. Let's begin by going back through that
email point by point.

OK.  So right at the start, well, after accusing
us of "damaging Christianity deeply" he says, "You think science is wrong" And
here goes the broken record again. We've said this so many times on the show,
in Creation magazine, on creation.Com, in books, in videos it's not about the science! It's not about the science. We don't think 'science' is wrong, as
we're accused of thinking, in the sense of real, operational science like chemistry
and physics.

We think that the materialistic philosophy
of history masquerading as science is wrong. Wouldn't it be great if everybody commenting
on the origins debate anywhere, regardless of their position on the issues, from the
Biblical creationist to the atheistic evolutionist and everything in between, could get this
one simple concept: that the debate is not about science. The debate doesn't happen at the level of science. It happens at the level of history.

That's where it happens. OK, so just to explain it one more time, the
things that relate to origins (or where things came from) are not just about science. If we were to ask you, what is the scientific method? What does science involve? Most of you could get at least the basics. You might say things like, well, science involves
making observations, or doing experiments or things that are repeatable,
that's the science.

And that is what science is. That is what science is. Now if we ask, what's history all about? Well, I mean, most people are going to get
that too, right? It's about past events. And some of you might feel your blood pressure
rising at this point recalling a past history test where you had to remember all those dates
of critical events and so on.

History is about that. The origins debate involves a mixture of
science and history. It's not just science. Right.

It's a lot like forensics. Forensics involves a mixture of science and history. For example, at a crime scene, investigators
might dust for fingerprints, and collect hair or blood for DNA analysis. That's the science.

That's the science, that's right. But then a story is made up about how all
the data from science, and all the facts can be explained by a particular history. And some stories, or histories will fit
the facts better than others. You know, it's like: the butler did it,
or, the maid did it, right? And that's where it goes to the courtroom
scene near the end of the show.

Different histories can be imagined to explain
exactly the same data. The debate isn't over the data. It's over the history applied to the data. Yeah.

And that's really similar to the creation/evolution
and age-of-the-earth debate. In palaeontology, for example, when scientists
find fossils they don't come with tags on them that say things like, "Hi, I'm 75
million years old, and I like to eat hamburgers, and I enjoy taking naps on Sunday
afternoon after church." None of that information comes from the fossil. No. On the fossil itself, and its surroundings there in
the rock, is the where the science is done.

It could all be documented very carefully,
I suppose it could be tested chemically. Nobody disagrees with that because it's
an observation. You disagree, you go and do the experiment yourself. There it is.

That's the science.
There's no debate over that. You know, it's like, "Look there's a fossil.
It's in the ground." Nobody debates that. Right, exactly. But what makes the fossil much more interesting
is: when did it die? How long was it alive? What did it eat? What was its social interaction with the other animals? How did this animal get encased in the rock? Those are the kinds of things that we really
want to know about.

But the problem is, those things are not observations. At this point it's like moving to the courtroom
scene, just like you talked about. A story is made up to explain the ideas and,
just like in forensics, some stories (or histories) will fit better than others. That's right.

That's the debate. So, right at the beginning of this email it's
clear that this person doesn't understand this basic concept of the origins debate. The debate is about different histories, not
the science. And the same is true of William Lane Craig's comments.

As brilliant as a debater as he is (and he is), he's missed
this foundational aspect of the origins debate. He's commenting specifically on the related
issue of the age of the earth. Which is very much a debate of different histories. Historical debate.

And we'll continue responding to the email
when we get back. Genesis Verse by Verse is a Bible study tool
available on CMI's website designed to help Pastors, students and laymen alike study the
book of Genesis like never before. And it is completely free! Simply look up any verse in Genesis 1-11 or
just scroll down the page. The centre column provides links to articles
that answer common questions pertaining to that verse and the topics that naturally arise from them.

Visit Creation.Com to use it today! On this week's episode our focus is on the
often not so kind accusations that creationists are damaging Christianity. That we're making Christianity look like
it's for unscientific, uneducated people. But, that's not the case. No, no.

So, continuing with the email, Robert says,
"Science primarily does not have opinions. It has data -- data that does not give a living
[----] what anyone thinks." And the response from Dr Johnathan Sarfati,
who responded to this email online, he says, "We agree that there is an objective reality
that is independent of what anyone thinks. Postmodernism denies this. That is why science developed in a biblical
creationist Christian worldview during the Middle Ages, but was stillborn in other worldviews." Right.

In the article, that you can look up online,
by the way, at creation.Com/damaging, Dr Sarfati has included weblinks to other articles detailing
what he just said about science arising within a biblical worldview, and not other worldviews. Fascinating stuff. Yeah, we actually did a show on this last year called,
"The biblical basis for modern science." Now, that show is based on conclusions from secular
historians of science, who show that it was the biblical worldview that gave rise to science,
much to the surprise of most people today. Right  and some of those historians! And just as a side note, it was that episode
that was submitted to the International Christian Film Festival and got us nominated for "Best TV show",
Creation Magazine LIVE!  This year, in 2018.

As we record this here today, we're not
sure if we won yet, that's going to be announced in a couple of weeks, but it's nice to have
the value of this show appreciated by other Christian filmmakers and those in Christian media. Right. You know, that is nice.
But you know, what we treasure even more than
that, is the affect that the show, and the information we present, has on you, the viewers. For some of you, you've told us that you
were an atheist before watching the show and the content helped you to recognize that the
Bible is God's Word, and it's totally true, and you were moved to make Jesus
Lord of your life! That's great  and those comments are
so encouraging! Just to know that God is using this little show,
Creation magazine LIVE, to draw people to Himself.

It makes it all worth it! Yeah, exactly. Anyways, let's get back to the email here. He makes this comment, "Soft tissue in dinosaur
bones does not prove a young anythingand the scientists working on that material understand
that, where you don't." OK  and Dr Sarfati's response was, "real science shows that there is soft tissue (and protein and DNA) in dino bones. Real science shows how fast these things break
downespecially DNA.

What real science does NOT show is the
millions-of-years dogma. But since the discoverers believed in this
dogma, they were extremely sceptical at first." Then he quotes Dr Mary Schweitzer, who is a pioneer
in this area and not a creationist, by the way. She believes that the bones in which she's finding
this material really are millions of years old. That's right, yeah.

And you can see her struggle to reconcile
her beliefs about the age of the bones with the incredible discoveries that she's making in the lab. Yes, exactly. Dr Schweitzer said, "When you think about
it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should
be gone, it should be degraded completely." And note, that's real science! The rapid decay of organic material is an observation. Anyone who disagrees with that observation
can do the test themselves.

Do it yourself, yes. Throw a piece of meat out on the lawn and
you can watch it decay. She also said that when the soft tissue was first
discovered, and this is an interesting quote, "'It was totally shocking,' Schweitzer says. 'I didn't believe it until we'd done it 17 times.'" So, her beliefs about the bone's age (being
millions of years old) caused her to doubt what she was seeing in the lab.

So, she made absolutely sure that there really
was soft tissue, and what appear to be blood vessels and blood cells, there in a T-rex bone. Dr Sarfati also mentioned that, "We are
well aware that she has tried to explain the results away, but most unconvincing from the viewpoint of known chemistry  see: 'Dinosaur soft tissue: In seeming desperation, evolutionists turn to iron to preserve the idea of millions of years'." That's a link to an article that outlines
a sort of grasping at straws proposal to hold on to the belief that the bones
are millions of years old. Right. Iron in blood cells can act as a preservative.

It wouldn't be as good as formaldehyde but
for the true believer in millions of years, that's the answer: iron saves that day! We can keep believing that the bones are millions
of years old, even though they contain unfossilised soft tissue, because iron has preserved them. Right. But for how long can iron preserve soft tissue? That's the question. If iron isn't as good a preservative as
formaldehyde, could formaldehyde really preserve organic compounds for 70 million years? No.

Right. I mean, you could put that bone in formaldehyde,
bury it deep in the earth, shield it from any outside energy or chemicals, and it's still going to
break down over that unimaginable length of time. Formaldehyde doesn't stop decay altogether,
it just slows it down. Now, these bones were found in Montana and
they weren't protected the way I just described.

No, no they weren't. About the only thing that will stop decay
is freezing at absolute zero, about minus 273 degrees Celsius. Right, and it doesn't get that cold in Montana. No, it doesn't.

Let's take a short break and then we'll continue. Dinosaur tracks have been found all over the
world, but curiously, these track ways are almost always straight. Usually, when animals are relaxed, they meander
around in all directions. But if they're frightened, they tend to
move fast in one direction.

So why do dinosaur tracks suggest they were
panicking when they made the footprints? The global flood recorded in the Bible provides
a compelling answer. As the waters rose during Noah's Flood,
various mechanismssuch as tidal movements of the watercaused flood-laid sediments
to be briefly exposed. This allowed dinosaurs that had previously
been caught up in the currents, to make tracks on the freshly-laid sediments, before the
sediments were inundated again. Thus dinosaurs were experiencing global panic
when they made their footprints, and that explains why their track ways are so often straight.

The preservation of tracks also requires their
rapid burialas would happen in the Flood. To find out more from Creation Ministries
International, visit our website CREATION.Com. So, this week were responding to the claim
that creationists damage Christianity by rejecting modern science. We're following an email sent to the ministry.

One of our scientists, Dr Jonathan Sarfati
responded to it showing that, no, we do not reject modern science. What we do reject, is the historical framework
that the scientific data is put into. Right, yes. Now, we really hope that this week's show
is an encouragement to those of you who might have been ridiculed in the past for taking a stand for
the Bible in this area of the age of the earth.

Actually, there's a great article on our
website titled, "101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe"  it's at
creation.Com/age. And that's an article you could share, you
could share that link with people who think it's unscientific to believe in a recent creation. Ok, just before the break we were taking about
soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Now, if this is the first time you've heard
about Dr Schweitzer's amazing discoveries, you can get up to speed on that by reading
the article at creation.Com/dino-dna Also, note that below the article there is
a long list of "Related Articles".

That's a gold mine for more details about
scientific evidence supporting dinosaurs living up until quite recently. That's right. OK, so let's continue with the email. Robert writes, "You would all be well advised
to go actually get into a real science program (tho I doubt you could) and learn the material." Ok.

Wow! And Dr Sarfati's response is, "Oh really? CMI probably hires more staff with earned
doctorates in science, from secular universities at that,
than any other Christian ministry. In most people's eyes, that would count
as a 'real science program'." Yes. And that point alone just highlights the fact
that if you believe that God created recently, you're not being anti-scientific or 'rejecting
modern science' as is claimed. Many of our scientists at Creation Ministries
International, by the way, were former evolutionists and believed in millions of years.

That's right. You know, it was by reading Scripture and
studying the evidence for a recent creation that they came to change their minds, against
all of their training and education. A recent creation isn't the default position
of the uneducated. These scientists carefully examined both sides,
comparing all the arguments.

For those of you who aren't scientists but
believe in a recent creation, you're in good company. So, the next statement in the email is, well,
strange to say the least. He writes, "Considerthe percentage of
scientists who believe the Earth is young is smaller than the percentage of people who
would be clinically insane in the same population. ALERT!! I.E., In order to claim that there is a debate
at all, you will have to have more people on 'your side' of the debate than the
percentage of clinically insane.

You don't." And Dr Sarfati responds, "Another example
of the illogic of anti-creationism: before it was 'data  does not give a
living [-----] what anyone thinks', but now you want us to care about what others think!  Apparently truth is now decided by majority vote,
despite all the times when the majority was wrong. For example, we should still believe in the phlogiston
theory of combustion and absolute geocentrism." He includes a link in this section to a fascinating
article, it's at creation.Com/scientists-wrong. It deals with a good question that relates
to the subject we're talking about today: Can all those scientists be wrong? And, the short answer is: Science, or truth, for that
matter, isn't determined by majority vote. The article lists a number of infamous examples
where the majority of scientists and thinkers in the past were wrong.

In fact, it's probably fair to say that
every scientific breakthrough begins with a minority position  that's why it's
called a breakthrough! That's why it's a breakthrough, yes. And it's kinda arrogant to think that that
type of thing (with the majority of scientists being wrong) couldn't happen today. I mean, after all, Jesus didn't teach that majority opinion
is what you should base your life on. He actually taught that people should base
their life on truth, and by doing so their lives would be able to withstand life's difficulties.

Yes, that's in Matthew 7 where Jesus says,
"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man
who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and
the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded
on the rock." Yeah, there's no mention of following majority
opinion there. Build your life on truth. No, there isn't.

And in that "Can all those scientists be wrong?" Article, there's a great quote from Michael Crichton Michael Crichton  the Jurassic park guy! Yes, he's an author but before that he had
a career in medicine and in science and he said: "Let's be clear: the work of science
has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one
investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are
verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant.

What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great
precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science." Cool. I wonder if that would apply to the
climate change debate? Ah yeah let's not go into that right now.

Alright. We're going to take a break and we'll
be back with some closing comments. Looking for a single resource that
totally destroys evolution? You need Evolution's Achilles Heels! Authored by 9 PhD scientists, the Evolution's
Achilles Heels project involved examining areas evolutionists feel are their scientific
strengths, such as: Natural Selection, Genetics and DNA, the Fossil Record, and Radiometric Dating. Discover how these areas, and others, are actually
massive scientific weaknesses for evolution.

Get Evolution's Achilles Heels, the
evolution Master Blaster! Order your copy at CREATION.Com. Welcome back. Ok, let's just look at one more statement
from the email that Robert writes. He says, "You have Kurt Wise disease." And Dr Sarfati responds, "Is this a new clinical diagnosis? Dr Wise has described an experiment where
he chopped out every verse of Scripture that is contradicted by evolution or billions of
years, and found that there was nothing left to hold his Bible by two fingers without it
falling apart.

That should be enough for any professing Christian, because Jesus said,
'Scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35) Another excellent point to consider. Far from harming Christianity, when we take
God's Word straightforwardly, drawing the meaning from the text, using standard hermeneutics, we get a recent creation by God in 6 days,
and a global flood. And today, that biblical truth is supported
by mountains of scientific observations. Christianity is an evidence-based faith, not a blind faith.

Yes, that's exactly right. Well, we hope that you've been encouraged
by some of today's content, especially for those of you who have been looked down on
because you believe (just like we do) that the Bible teaches a recent creation, in six
days, followed by a global flood. Yes, those truths don't fly in the world
of academia, I mean, we get that, but they're true anyway. In a related way, there are other truths that
today's academia think are foolish too, and those truths are much more important to
get right than the age of the earth debate.

And that's called the 'foolishness of
the cross', right? Paul wrote to the church in Corinth saying,
"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being
saved it is the power of God. For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.' Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  For the foolishness of God is wiser than
men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." And that's a good reminder to stay true to God's Word, even if all the 'smart' people say it's wrong. If you need some encouragement in your faith
get Creation magazine. It comes out 4 times a year and it's like
a constant feed of nourishment to your faith.

Yeah, it's like a drip-feed, intravenous feed, or whatever, of nourishment and truth coming into your life. If you've never seen it before - you've
never seen Creation magazine - you can view a digital copy online, for free (a sample copy). Go to creation.Com/free-mag and you can flip
through it there online. If you like it, subscribe.

You can share the digital copy, when you subscribe
with 5 different people in your family, or have it on 5 different devices. Yeah, smartphone, laptop, desktop, that kind of thing. We'd love to hear from you! If the show has helped you to understand more
about science or the Bible  that kind of thing  send us a note. You can use the feedback section there on
the website, creation.Com.

Or if you're watching this on YouTube, put
a comment in on YouTube; some of those comments are encouraging. And then we'll see you next week. Remember  science supports Scripture..