Does biblical creation stand up?

America had the Big Debate two weeks ago.

Bill Nye, "the science guy," is an author, educator, television personality, inventor, executive director of the Planetary Society and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

Ken Ham is a Bible-believing Christian, author, president of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.

The event, which was widely publicised, was witnessed by hundreds in a packed auditorium and thousands on the internet. The subject: creation versus evolution, of course.

I have been slow to locate the video, but I have done it. You can watch the debate for yourselves - free of charge - here.

Very interesting stuff.

Evolution versus God

Evolution and Christianity are incompatible.

Richard Dawkins, the high priest of Darwinian evolution, rejects every form of religion out of hand and believes evolution is the answer.

"There is no doubt in Dawkins's mind." writes Marilynne Robinson, "that the evils of the world are to be laid at the doorstep of the church, mosque and synagogue, and that science must be our salvation. . . It is the 'God delusion,' which has afflicted almost everyone almost everywhere through the whole of recorded time, that has made us behave so badly. And Science (by which he really means his version of Darwinism) is our potential rescuer. He has a simple-as-that, plain-as-day approach to the grandest questions, unencumbered by doubt, consistency, or countervailing information."

Consider Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research:

"The evolutionary system has been entrenched for so long that many people who otherwise accept the Bible as infallible have deemed it expedient to compromise on this issue. Thus, evolution has been called, 'God's method of creation'; and the Genesis record of the six days of creation has been reinterpreted in terms of the evolutionary ages of historical geology. These geological ages themselves have been accommodated in Genesis either by placing them in an assumed 'gap' between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 or by changing the 'days' of creation into the 'ages' of evolution.

"Theories of this kind raise more problems than they solve, however. It is more productive to take the Bible literally and then to interpret the actual facts of science within its revelatory framework. If the Bible cannot be understood, it is useless as revelation. If it contains scientific fallacies, it could not have been given by inspiration. . .

"All such theories which seek to accommodate the Bible to evolutionary geology are invalid and, therefore, should be abandoned. . .

"It is impossible to devise a legitimate means of harmonizing the Bible with evolution. We must conclude, therefore, that if the Bible is really the Word of God (as its writers allege and as we believe) then evolution and its geological age-system must be completely false. Since the Bible cannot be reinterpreted to correlate with evolution, Christians must diligently proceed to correlate the facts of science so with the Bible."

A video, Evolution vs God, has had hundreds of thousands of views and prompted thousands of comments in a short space of time on YouTube.

"Darwinian evolution has nothing," says evangelist Ray Comfort, who made the video by interviewing scientists who claimed to be atheists. "It's unprovable. It's unproven. It's unscientific. It's unsubstantiated, and there's not an ounce of evidence. It was just amazing to watch these four experts in their field groping and grasping like fish on a hot desert floor."

Watch the video for yourself. You can see it here.

A question or two for Sir Paul Nurse

New free schools found to be teaching creationism as fact could lose their Government funding, according to a report on BBC News online.

A new rule says that from 2013, all free schools in England must teach evolution as "a comprehensive and coherent scientific theory."

The new rule will apply to Grindon Hall Christian school in Sunderland and two other schools due to open next year, after concerns about the teaching of creationism.

Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said he was "delighted." He said previous rules on free schools and the teaching of evolution versus creationism had been "not tight enough."

Although the previous rules had confined creationism to religious education lessons, "the Royal Society identified a potential issue that schools could have avoided teaching evolution by natural selection in science lessons or dealt with it in such a perfunctory way that the main experience for students was the creationist myth."

"The creationist myth," Sir Paul?

I want to tell you that evolution by natural selection is a theory that has never been proved and is being brought into question by more and more scientists.

The first verse in the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." If you don't believe the first verse, what price the rest of the Bible? 2 Tim 3:16, according to the Authorised Version, says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." If creationism isn't true, that verse is a lie.

I am reminded of the young man who discovered by reading the New Testament that Jesus believed the book of Genesis. The young man said "My high school science teacher once told me that much of Genesis is false. But since my high school science teacher did not prove he was God by rising from the dead, I'm going to believe Jesus instead."

And rules on the teaching of evolution versus creationism "not tight enough," Sir Paul?

Every child should be taught what the Bible says about creation. But he or she shouldn't be forced to believe it. And every child should be taught about what people choose to believe about evolution. But he or she shouldn't be forced to believe that. That's what education is about: giving young people the (unbiased) information they need to teach them to think for themselves.

One last question. Schools that teach creationism as fact are likely to lose their funding.

Will schools that teach evolution as fact be likely to lose their funding?

I thought not.

What it takes for a miracle

In a new book, Professor Stephen Hawking says that modern physics leaves no room for a Creator and that science can explain the origins of the universe.

"Because there is a law of gravity," he says, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

And who, might I ask, put gravity there?

While we are about it, who made man's mind, his personality, his ability to understand right and wrong, his ability to love others? Did gravity create those too?

Until his retirement, Stephen Hawking was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, a post previously held by Sir Isaac Newton, who believed the universe must have been created by God because it could not have emerged out of chaos.

Stephen Hawking is a man with a brilliant mind. He is also wrong.

In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth. He created man in His own image. Man disobeyed God, and sin came on all men. God so loved the world that He sent His Son to die to bear the punishment for man's sin. When a man receives Christ, a miracle occurs, and he comes into a personal relationship with God.

I have discovered that knowing God doesn't depend on an intelligent mind. An intelligent man can miss it. And a little child can have it. All it needs is a sincere heart and the grace to believe.

It stands to reason. Doesn't it?

I wrote here about Jack Kinsella's suggestion that if you are in conversation with an atheist, he is likely to challenge you to prove that God exists, lest he is asked to prove that God doesn't exist (because he can't).

Jack Kinsella is at it again. Seeking to disprove atheists' arguments, that is. One of the most formidable obstacles atheism must contend with, he says, is the existence of its principal tool - the ability to reason.

Knowledge is attained by reasoned thought and by reasoned thought, the atheist has concluded that he knows there is no God. . .

What is the evolutionist's explanation for the ability to reason? They argue it is the result of chemical reactions in the brain. But chemicals react - they don't think, or reason, or plan.

It is a bedrock principle of science that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. A chemical reaction cannot generate morality, immorality, reason or rationality.

A reaction is the result of an action. Reason, on the other hand, is the analysis of that action. . .

The ability to reason can only come from one of two sources. It was either the product of intelligent design or it was the result of mindless chance.

Since the mindless cannot create the mind, there is only one reasonable explanation - that the mind was created by intelligent design and implanted with a divine moral code.

Just as a chemical reaction cannot explain reason, reason cannot explain a moral code. . .

If a deer population in a particular area grows too dense, conservationists will hold a 'deer cull' - a special hunting season on deer to reduce the population and ensure the survival of the species.

The morality of taking a deer's life is not at issue when the alternative is the needless suffering, starvation or death of the whole population. Why is it immoral to do the same with human beings?. . .

Even if a chemical reaction could explain how we know right from wrong, it doesn't explain why culling deer is right and culling humans is wrong.

What is the objective standard? Upon what basis do we form such profound judgments?. . .

If they are nothing more than the mindless product of random chance chemical reactions in the brain, how can we KNOW anything?

We can't. The effect cannot be greater than the cause. Knowledge is greater than random chemical reaction.

You can't be an atheist without having faith in your own reason and judgment, but the basis for your faith cannot be explained apart from the Creator God that you are sure (based on your God-given ability to reason) does not exist.

Of course, recognizing intelligent design is not the same thing as recognizing a loving God Who sent His only begotten Son to atone for the sins of mankind at the Cross.

But it's a start.

Sounds reasonable to me.