Darwin Day Creation Conference Draws Thousands

By The Christian Post on February 17th, 2009

imagesbannerscp_150x601Reprinted by permission of the Christian Post

By Elena Garcia
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Feb. 17 2009 08:59 AM EST

A conference hosted by a creationist ministry to help Christians defend their faith against evolution drew over 4,500 people during its opening evening on Sunday.

Ken Ham, founder and president of Answers in Genesis, which hosted the three-day “Answers for Darwin” conference, told the crowd in the opening session that America is becoming less of a Christian nation everyday and that it is due in part to the influence of Darwinism.

He cited statistics by research firm The Barna Group, showing that at least 60 percent of students raised in church-going homes who attend public schools will walk away from church.

Referring to the culture war, Ham said there are increasing pervasive attacks in America, including abortion and the removal of the Bible, prayer and creation from public schools.

“What is wrong?” he asked the audience at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va. “I suggest to you the foundation is being taken out of this nation that was once here and we see the structure collapsing.”j0309390

Ham compared Christianity to a building, which without a foundation would collapse. For Christianity, that foundation is the authority of the Bible, he contended.

But the evolutionary theory proposed by Charles Darwin has helped to undermine biblical authority by challenging the account of creation in Genesis, according to Ham, who believes in the literal interpretation of the six-day creation story in Genesis.

“When you take out Genesis 1-11, it’s like taking out the foundation to a building and you would expect it to collapse,” he explained.

Ham noted the widespread negative influence of Darwinism.

Darwinism has been used to support racism and by Hitler to justify his actions, Ham claimed.

In Finland, the theory was cited by a student who shot a number of students and said it was a way of putting back to play natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Ham said that if children are taught about natural selection and natural processes, they are being taught in effect that they are just an animal.

“Is that ethically relevant?” he asked rhetorically.

The Young Earth Creationist urged the participants at the free event to not lose biblical authority, starting with what they teach their kids at home.

Many people in their homes have “imposed Christianity from the top-down on our kids but most of them go to schools where they give them a foundation to rebuild the structure,” he explained.

He said it was important that Christians raise their children to be able to give answers to a secular world and speak with authority.

Following Ham’s address, the crowd also listened to talks by Dr. Andrew Snelling, a scientist with Answers in Genesis who holds a Ph.D. in geology, and Liberty University professor Dr. David DeWitt, who holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience.

The “Answers for Darwin” conference, which runs until Wednesday, is being held in response to the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his fundamental work The Origin of Species. Answers in Genesis hosted a similar conference in California earlier this month.

Copyright 2009 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.  

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: News
Tags: , , ,

  • cinemaphile85
    "Darwinism has been used to support racism and by Hitler to justify his actions, Ham claimed."

    To be fair, Hitler also used the Bible to justify his actions.
  • While Hitler's actions are illogical and unjustifiable according to the teachings of the Bible, they are completely logical and justifiable according to Darwinism.
  • Javier
    Bob,

    You have done an excellent job. Kudos!

    People like cinemaphile85 love to play mind games and enjoy the repartee. They "shoot" at your feet like a drunken cowboy just to see you dance. Logic to them is a "closed mind in love with self."

    Bob, you have more patience than I will ever have - I appreciate reading your responses.
  • I don't feel very patient sometimes (Lord knows what patience I have gets tested), but thanks!
  • Dimensio
    Please explain how Hitler's actions are "logical and justifiable" according to "Darwinism". Also, please explain why you employ the term "Darwinism"; I have observed a strong correlation between use of the term "Darwinism" in reference to the theory of evolution and a lack of understanding of the subject of evolution such that it has become reasonable for me to assume initially that an individual employing the term "Darwinism" is likely not to be a credible source of information on the subject of evolution.
  • I have found that people who want to quibble over the terms "Darwinism" versus "evolutionism" are usually looking to avoid an unpleasant truth about one or the other--or both. For the purposes of this discussion--in that they both posit that humans are nothing but highly evolved and advanced animals--they are essentially the same.

    Hitler's actions are logical and justifiable--commendable, actually--according to Darwinism or evolutionism because he sought to purify the race, the gene pool. He believed certain groups and ethnicities were genetically inferior, and that the Aryan race would be much stronger and more fit if cleansed of these impurities.

    A stronger race, better able to deal with challenges and adversities, would be a good thing. And since (according to evolutionism or Darwinism) human beings have no immoral soul, no God-given dignity, are not created in the image of God, and there is no eternal moral accountability...why not get rid of the dross? It makes no logical sense to keep it around to dilute and weaken the gene pool.

    You see, you evolutionists and Darwinists should be praising Hitler for attempting to carry out a rational, logical and useful policy.
  • cinemaphile85
    There's no question that Hitler's intentions were logical, whether or not you look at it from a Darwinian framework. But what you are doing with this article is illogical; that is, you're basically saying that people who accept evolution are Nazis. Nice propaganda there, Bob.
  • I didn't say that.

    I didn't imply that.

    But to claim that I did makes a nice dodge to avoid the unpleasant truth, doesn't it?
  • cinemaphile85
    Let me get this straight.

    Out of every person in the world who has accepted Darwin's theory, past and present, you showcase Adolf Hitler, one of the most evil men the world has ever known. And out of the countless ways the theory has been applied to real life situations since its publication, you chose one of the most extreme examples, the Holocaust, to illustrate your point.

    And when I accuse you of equating evolution advocates to Nazis, you turn it around and make it seem like since I'm the one who noticed the analogy, evolution *must* be evil? Am I to believe that such a comparison was unintentional on your part? This reminds me of that abortion of a film called "Expelled," where the obvious subliminal message is that evolutionism = Nazism, so as to portray Darwin's theory in the worst possible light.

    You truly are an artist when it comes to propaganda. Wow.
  • Why was Hitler so evil? It's very likely that he had good intentions. On what basis do you judge him to be "evil?"

    Do you insist that Hitler's actions are illogical, unjustifiable and something that could and should be condemned under the implications of evolution theory? You're making an argument on a moral basis...based on something that has no moral basis. Please connect the dots for me here.
  • Dimensio
    "I have found that people who want to quibble over the terms "Darwinism" versus "evolutionism" are usually looking to avoid an unpleasant truth about one or the other--or both."

    Actually, the distinction is important. The term "Darwinism" implies that the entirety of the theory is based upon the writing and research of Charles Darwin and no one else. Many who have not researched the theory of evolution to any extent are under the impression that the theory of evolution is based entirely upon Mr. Darwin's work, when in fact the theory has been greatly advanced, refined and researched since his time, and that new revisions are made to the theory even now by biologists and other scientific researchers. An individual who believes that research and development on the theory of evolution ceased at the time of Mr. Darwin's death is unlikely to be aware of the extensive genetic evidence discovered that has been employed to construct a "tree of life" that, while developed independently of the fossil record, corroborates and reinforces the "tree of life" previously assembled through examination of the fossil record. In fact, I have read claims from individuals that Darwin is regarded as a "propeht", and that his word "may never be questioned" amongst those who accept evolution; their claim is demonstrably incorrect and demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding caused by a lack of research, as much of what Mr. Darwin wrote regarding evolution has since been discovered to be inadequate or even entirely incorrect.


    "For the purposes of this discussion--in that they both posit that humans are nothing but highly evolved and advanced animals--they are essentially the same."

    I am unfamiliar with the concept of an organism being "highly evolved" within the field of biology. Can you explain this concept, and provide a professional reference? Additionally, I do not believe that your assertion is accurate regardless of the definition of "highly evolved". As the theory of evolution is a theory of biology, it can only address humans within a biological context. If any non-biological labels can be attributed to humans -- that is, if humans are possessed of attributes that are not themselves biological or addressed by biological science -- then evolution, being a subset of biological study, cannot be used to derive any conclusions regarding those attributes, including their absence. As such, evolution cannot conclude that humans are "nothing but" animals (whether highly evolved or not), because such a conclusion would inherently imply a statement about attributes that simply cannot be addressed by biology at all.
  • In other words, you like to quibble over insignificant details and distinctions in order to avoid an unpleasant truth.

    I thought so.
  • Dimensio
    "Hitler's actions are logical and justifiable--commendable, actually--according to Darwinism or evolutionism because he sought to purify the race, the gene pool."

    Please explain how a scientific theory may be used to establish that any specific action or event may be "commendable" without invoking the naturalistic fallacy. Explain how a gene pool or a race may be "purified", and explain why this is logical, justifiable and even "commendable" according to the theory of evolution.


    " He believed certain groups and ethnicities were genetically inferior,"

    Please define the parameters of genetic inferiority, and demonstrate that Mr. Hitler's assessment of genetic inferiority were correct, according to the theory of evolution.


    " and that the Aryan race would be much stronger and more fit if cleansed of these impurities. "

    Please demonstrate that the "Aryan race" would in fact have been "stronger", at least as predicted by the theory of evolution. In so doing, explain what is meant by "stronger" and define "impurities" as it relates to the subject of evolution. Explain why, according to the theory of evolution, such an outcome is desirable or "commendable" without invoking the naturalistic fallacy.


    "A stronger race, better able to deal with challenges and adversities, would be a good thing."

    Why would this be "good" according to the theory of evolution? How can any scientific theory, serving merely to describe events within a determined scope within the universe, directly imply desirability of outcomes without invoking the naturalistic fallacy?


    " And since (according to evolutionism or Darwinism) human beings have no immoral soul,"

    You are simply incorrect. The theory of evolution does not address the subject of a "soul", thus it cannot conclude that no "soul" is extant. The concept of a "soul" is not relevant to biology, and thus no theory in biology may rationally be used to derive any conclusions regarding the concept, including a conclusion that the concept is entirely fictional.


    " no God-given dignity, are not created in the image of God, and there is no eternal moral accountability..."

    These are also not conclusions derived from the theory of evolution. It would appear that you do not actually understand the theory of evolution.


    "why not get rid of the dross?"

    To what "dross" do you refer, and on what criteria have you derived this status of "dross"?


    " It makes no logical sense to keep it around to dilute and weaken the gene pool."

    How, exactly, is the gene pool "weakened" by the continued existence of the "dross" whose derivation you have yet to logically explain? How have you determined the sensibility of allowing "it" to remain within the gene pool? It would appear as though you are suggesting actions toward a desired goal; how does a description of events in biology -- which is fundamentally what evolution is -- inherently and logically imply any specific "goal". Essentially, how have you derived an "ought" from an "is" without employing the naturalistic fallacy?


    "You see, you evolutionists and Darwinists should be praising Hitler for attempting to carry out a rational, logical and useful policy."

    You have not demonstrated the rationality, logic or usefulness of any of Hitler's actions, within or without the context of the theory of evolution. You have merely asserted it, without providing a logical explanation.
  • Tom
    Dimensio,

    You clearly are new to Dakota Voice. You are using cogent, sound reasoning and simple observations to point out the absurdity of Bob's claims.

    Here at Dakota Voice, a conclusion is made (I am still not sure who makes the conclusion) and then Bob, or some other guest writer, makes logical leaps from one premise to another, often circularly, to prove some conclusion. A requisite to reading anything posted here is to not think for yourself.

    For example:
    Hitler's actions are illogical and unjustifiable under the bible (because Bob said so)
    Hitlers actions are logical and justifiable under the the theory of evolution (because Bob said so).

    Ignore the fact that both those conclusions are based on certain premises (i.e., genocide is contrary to the bible; genocide is acceptable under the theory of evolution if the other race is inferior). Further ignore that the conclusion also rests on the premise that the Aryan race is better than the Jews. If you didn't ignore them you would see that both statements are conclusory based on flawed premises and lacking any support in fact.

    Then you would see that Bob has proved nothing other than he knows how present things in a totally slanted and irrational way.

    The bottom line is some people cannot put aside their own beliefs to try and understand the world around them.
  • Tom, do you contest that Hitler's actions are illogical and unjustifiable according to the Bible?

    Do you contest that Hitlers actions are logical and justifiable under the the theory of evolution?
  • Tom
    Yes, actually I do. I make no claims for the bible. I believe anyone with an agenda can use it to justify their actions.

    Hitlers actions are not logical and justifiable under evolution. Evolution explains how humans developed over time into what we are now. It does not seek to advocate or dictate ethnic cleansing.

    To the extent you argue that one might conclude, based on the theory of evolution, that the human race could be improved if weak were eliminated, and that therefore justified hitlers actions, I disagree that it is logical or justified.

    First, it presupposes that jews are weak and polluting our genepool. That is illogical and unjustfiable for obvious reasons.

    Second, ethnic cleansing is not a logical step if you accept evolution. Again, evolution explains where we came from, it does not compell murder. Evolution does not preclude morality.
  • So you believe Hitler's actions are logical and justifiable under the Bible, and that Hitlers actions are illogical and unjustifiable under the the theory of evolution?

    Did you read a thing I said above?

    Evolution theory does not "seek" ethnic cleansing.

    But, as I explained above (if you bothered to read it before embarrassing yourself), if evolution theory is correct, there is no logical or moral reason NOT to kill any human being you find inconvenient. If you disagree with that logical implication, I'd love to hear your rationale.

    Also, if Hitler had reason to believe that other races were inferior (and I do believe he did, if you you know anything about him), then why not purge your borders of weak people? Why not cleanse the gene pool of weak elements? Under the implications of materialism/naturalism/evolution, what possible reason could you have for holding your people back?

    Don't close your eyes to the implications and logical destination of what you believe. You aren't that stupid and you shouldn't make yourself look that way by pretending you have no analytical and deductive skills.
  • Tom
    1) I said I make no claims to the bible. So no, I did not say it is justified under the bible. I did say that I think people with an agenda can manipulate it to say justify what they want. I know you are not big on nuances, so just to be clear: I don't think it is justified under the Bible or anything -- But some peole may cite it to justify what they want to do.

    2) Yes I read everything. I enjoyed it too. I think debate is healthy. And I'm not embarrassed -- I'm not sure why you think I would be.

    3) Again, evolution does not preclude morality. Where in evolutionary theory is there anything suggesting otherwise? Indeed, under evolution morality could be viewed as a factor of social cohesion which helped humans evolve. Thus, there is no inherent conflict between evolution and morality.

    Evolutionary theory is not premised on species killing members of their own species. It is premised on natural selection. Again, to the extent you are arguing that genocide and murder it is the next logical step, I disagree. Just because evolution explains how we came to be, it does not mean that we should run around killing people we percieve to be weak.

    4) Hitler may have felt what he did was logical, no doubt. However that is not the "logical and justifiable" conclusion of evolution. Maybe to him it was, just as to him the bible made it logical and justifiable. But that does not mean it is objectively logical or justifiable.

    5) Read your last paragraph. Then pretend I said it to you.
  • If you don't think these things are justifiable under the Bible, why do you think some people could twist the Bible to justify them? Are you unclear on what the Bible teaches? Or do you assume other people are unclear on what the Bible teaches? And if other people attempt to use the Bible to justify immoral acts while they are unclear on what it teaches, then the doctrine of the Bible isn't at fault is it?

    Evolution theory is not "premised on species killing members of their own species"...but what if such actions were advantageous and beneficial to a particular person or group within the species? What if such actions made the species stronger, better able to adapt to changing conditions, better able to overcome? Wouldn't that be a good thing to get rid of the dross?

    Evolution doesn't preclude morality...but on what basis does morality rest under evolution? Convenience? Desirability?

    And if on convenience or desirability, what if your standard of convenience or desirability doesn't match up with the standard of convenience or desirability of someone with more power than you? As was the case with Hitler, Stalin and many others? On what basis do you argue that their acts are immoral? On what basis do you argue that their acts are wrong?
  • cinemaphile85
    How would Tom's answer possibly make any difference? No amount of debating over what's "logical and justifiable" within a certain ideology will change the fact that throughout history, the Bible has caused exponentially more innocent deaths than has "On the Origin of Species."
  • Really? I've read through the entire Bible several times, and read a myriad of passages within it a myriad of times, and I've yet to any evidence of your claim.

    Meanwhile, a number of men who believe in the tenets of evolution have lived their lives within the parameters of its moral implications...and more than 100 million are dead because of it.

    And as to what difference Tom's answer could make, he implied Hitler's actions are logical and justifiable under the bible, and that Hitlers actions are illogical and unjustifiable under the the theory of evolution. I'd be very curious to hear his "rationale" for that implication.
  • cinemaphile85
    So the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the torturing and burning of Protestant "heretics" in Catholic England, the Crusades.... those things has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible?
  • No. We've been over this before, cinemaphile85. How many times do you have to be told something?

    God and the Bible aren't any more to blame when someone violates their tenets than Ford is to blame when a Ford-owner ignores the owner's manual or runs someone over using the Ford.

    Meanwhile, the actions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and many others are completely justifiable under the tenets of evolution. They make perfect sense and are not the slightest bit wrong. In fact, Hitler's motives were completely logical according to the implications of materialism/naturalism/evolution.

    Don't like where evolution takes you? Maybe it's time to abandon it. If I don't like where the bus is going, I get off.

    Maybe it's time to ditch an unsound theory...that leads to an awful lot of cruelty and killing.
  • Before I waste my time jumping through any more hoops trying to provide information, answer a question or two for me.

    Do you accept that Hitler considered the Aryan race superior?

    Do you accept that Hitler considered other races and groups to be inferior?

    Do you accept that Hitler wanted to better the Aryan race?

    If you don't accept these basic facts, there's no point in wasting any more time trying to provide information to someone who is obviously not open to any information critical of evolution theory.
  • Al Cibiades
    Of course, your entire premise is illogical. Even if it were true, which its not, that Hitler's actions have any logical or justifiable connection to theory of evolution, it would have no bearing on the validity of the theory.

    Secondly, the entire premise of your attempt at argument is to use Hitler's repugnant actions as a an example of immoral act allowed if the Bible is not used as a guide to morality. Since we already know the act was wrong without reference to the Bible, your point is disproven.

    Of course, the Bible does have an example of supposedly justified genocide ordered by God. Of course, since God supposedly ordered it would be regard as ok by theists. So Hitler had a good example.

    Another basic fallacy in your argument,is that whether Hitler's actions were consistent with his views (with or without evolution) doesn't justify his actions. Holding any such opinion would never hold the degree of certainty to justify killing people. And to regard the view of science as supporting his clearly insane views is itself insane.

    In point of fact the hatred of Jews was brought about over centuries by the religion you push. While anti-semitism is frowned on by most Christian leaders today, it was encouraged through the ages and even preached hear openly up until the second world war.
  • You are correct that the fact that Hitler's actions are completely logical and justifiable according to the theory of evolution has no bearing on the validity of the theory.

    However, how do you suppose that you "already know the act was wrong" without reference to the Bible? Perhaps you take the Judeo-Christian influence on civilization for granted. And on what ethical basis would you conclude that Hitlers actions were wrong, outside of the Christian worldview?

    Why did God order the "genocide" to which you referred? Have you bothered to look that up?

    Finally, I'd certainly like to know how Christianity and the Bible in any way teaches or justifies anti-semitism. The religion was, after all, started by a Jewish rabbi and twelve Jewish followers. It was spread throughout the Roman world by Jewish men and around half or more of the books of the New Testament was written by a Jewish Pharisee. How very odd that you would conclude that Christianity or the Bible would teach anti-semitism.

    Evolution, on the other hand, teaches that human beings are merely highly evolved animals with no souls and no moral accountability to a creator. So why not kill any human being that weakens the race or otherwise gets in one's way? Seriously, why not?
  • cinemaphile85
    "Finally, I'd certainly like to know how Christianity and the Bible in any way teaches or justifies anti-semitism."

    Well, preaching that all Jews are going to burn in hell forever unless they convert doesn't strike me as very pro-semitic.
  • Guess what: all Gentiles are going to burn in Hell forever unless they accept Christ's pardon, so we're all in the same boat. If that makes Christianity anti-semitic, then it's anti-human...which is absurd, since Christ sacrificed his life for rebellious human beings who didn't deserve it in the first place.

    Swing...and miss.
  • cinemaphile85
    Christianty isn't anti-human, as far as Christians are concerned. But it's certainly anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-agnostic, anti-Wiccan, anti-Shinto, anti-Buddhist...basically it's anti-everything-but-Christian. What an exclusive club!
  • It is anti-error. Just as a book that teaches 2+2=4 is anti-anyone who believes otherwise, or a book that teaches bleeding someone doesn't cure illnesses is anti-anyone who believes it does.

    It only makes sense that the Creator gets to set the rules. He created the universe and expects it to conform to his character. God bent over backwards to pardon us through Jesus Christ; accepting his free pardon shouldn't be that difficult, and anyone in the world can do it. Not exclusive at all.
  • Dimensio
    "Do you accept that Hitler considered the Aryan race superior?

    Do you accept that Hitler considered other races and groups to be inferior?

    Do you accept that Hitler wanted to better the Aryan race?"

    I will answer in the affirmative to each of the above questions. My inquiry, then, is how any of those propositions, or any of Hitler's actions, are logically derived from acceptance of the validity of the theory of evolution. A secondary inquiry could then be made as to how that would relate to the actual validity of the theory of evolution.
  • Then I will quickly reiterate what I already told you, since you either didn't get it the first time or didn't want to get it the first time:

    Hitler's actions are logical and justifiable--commendable, actually--according to Darwinism or evolutionism because he sought to purify the race, the gene pool. He believed certain groups and ethnicities were genetically inferior, and that the Aryan race would be much stronger and more fit if cleansed of these impurities.

    A stronger race, better able to deal with challenges and adversities, would be a good thing. And since (according to evolutionism or Darwinism) human beings have no immoral soul, no God-given dignity, are not created in the image of God, and there is no eternal moral accountability...why not get rid of the dross? It makes no logical sense to keep it around to dilute and weaken the gene pool.

    Certainly you are capable of more than one-dimensional thinking. Certainly you are capable of deductive reasoning (with today's sorry excuse for a public education system, maybe not, but I still think you are). Certainly you are capable of thinking outside of what you've been spoon fed.

    Stop and think about the implications of materialism/naturalism/evolution and stop hiding behind semantics. Do yourself a favor and face the destination of the things you choose to believe.
  • cinemaphile85
    "And since (according to evolutionism or Darwinism) human beings have no immoral soul."

    Dimensio's absolutely right on this one, Bob. The theory of evolution does not address whether humans have a soul. The "fact" you've cited is a misguided opinion at best.
  • Isn't it amazing that when someone wants to justify immorality or a fallacious argument with moral implications, they suddenly become totally blind to or ignorant of the existence of the concept of implications and logical deduction?

    If human beings are the end-product of millions or billions of years of unguided, totally naturalistic evolution, then they clearly do not have a soul--a supernatural element.

    The implications and logical conclusions of evolution are quite clear...to those who have the courage to face them and don't pretend they don't exist.
  • Dimensio
    "If human beings are the end-product of millions or billions of years of unguided, totally naturalistic evolution, then they clearly do not have a soul--a supernatural element."

    The theory of evolution cannot address the occurrence, or nonoccurrence, of supernatural events. As such, evolution cannot be used to establish that at no time during the history of life on earth either humans or a pre-human ancestor was given a "soul" through a supernatural process. There exist a number of theists who believe that such an event occurred, and their belief is not directly contradicted by the theory of evolution.
  • There you go hiding again!

    Materialism/naturalism/evolution assumes no supernatural causes or forces.

    There is no point in continuing this discussion with you, Dimensio. Like so many evolutionists, you're afraid to confront the implications of your beliefs. Until you are, you'll never be able to get your mind around anything I'm trying to tell you.

    I invite you to really give some serious though to the implications of evolution theory and where it leads. Someday, after you've done that, come back and we'll talk some more. Until then, I've wasted enough time.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »