University of Central Oklahoma Reinstates Ken Ham Event Initially Cancelled

EDMOND, Okla. — The University of Central Oklahoma (UCO) has reinstated a lecture with apologist Ken Ham following an initial cancellation, of which the student body president explained that he had been “bullied” by what he called a “very vocal group” that attempted to keep Ham from speaking on campus.

“I’m thrilled my talk at UCO is back on again,” Ham said in a statement. “UCO officials have definitely heard from many concerned state legislators, several local residents and alumni about the denial of our right to free speech.”

“Furthermore, by moving my talk from the evening to the afternoon, we now have the opportunity to reach even more UCO students during the school day. UCO is a commuter campus, and many of its students might not have been able to attend in the evening,” he joyed.

As previously reported, Ham, who leads Answers in Genesis and its Creation Museum and Ark Encounter, was scheduled to appear at the university’s Constitution Hall on March 5 to speak on “Genesis and the State of the Culture.” The appearance was reportedly a request of one of the student organizations, and the UCO student association helped to work out a contract as a sponsor.

However, according to Student Body President Stockton Duvall, some students expressed objection to Ham’s upcoming talk at the university.

“Many did this respectfully, while some did not,” he wrote in an explanatory letter earlier this month.

The student association had purposed to continue with the event anyway, and Duvall said that Answers in Genesis was advised of the matter “in hopes that the presentation could take them into consideration.”

  • Connect with Christian News

But, “[a]s this dialogue continued, the organization we partnered with chose to end the partnership on the Ken Ham event,” Duvall outlined. “I take responsibility that their decision was made, in part, due to a lack of communication on my part.”

“At that point, the UCOSA executive board felt it was best not to move forward with the event due to uncertainty of what could happen at the event,” he explained, noting that the decision came down to him and that he was not able to personally be in attendance.

However, Duvall also noted that there was a campus group that attempted to push him into cancelling Ham.

“I want to be very clear on this,” he wrote. “There have been members of our campus who have tried to bully me in making my decision. While none these examples have involved any members of administration, there is definitely something that must be done to address this issue. I am not the first person to be personally attacked by a very vocal group on campus that has little tolerance for opposing viewpoints.”

“The culture of allowing this group to bully both individual students and organizations on our campus ends now,” Duvall continued. “I will not allow any more intimidation to be directed toward our campus community from this point forward.”

According to Answers in Genesis, following the incident, UCO President Don Betz personally re-invited Ham to give his lecture at the university on the exact same date when it was to be originally presented. The new contract was signed on Thursday.

Joining Ham at 3:00 p.m. will be colleague Dr. Georgia Purdom, who will give a talk on “Genetics and the Bible,” and the two will also take questions from the audience.

Ham will additionally speak at nearby Fairview Baptist Church at 6:30 p.m. in a message entitled “How Science Confirms the Bible.” Both events are free and open to the public.


Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Although I despise Ken Ham and his lack of scientific understanding or integrity, I think the university made and error, and possibly would have been violating the law to cancel his speaking engagement. I am glad they have corrected that error. Now I hope that people with actual scientific knowledge will come to debate him. He’s a slippery customer, though, and will continue to hoodwink people with only a passing acquaintance with science.

    • Reason2012

      They can never address his points. They can only resort to ad hominem. Please think again: God offers forgiveness now for a lifetime of breaking His laws to anyone that sincerely desires it, and judgment is coming for every one of us for our lifetime of breaking God’s laws (sin) and refusing His offer to forgive and forget: He’s calling us to have a change of mind about sin, to instead have a change of mind to turn away from it, back towards God, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as the Only begotten Son of God.

      Most churches do not even preach on how Jesus warned more about_hell than He spoke of heaven:

      “And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that_kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath_killed hath power to cast into_hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.”
      Luke 12:4-5

      Don’t let bad experiences in false churches (most notably catholicism) have you turn away from God / Christ – we’re still responsible individually to God, and God will judge harshly false religions and false teachers.

    • Vince

      So you “despise” someone for holding different opinions from yours?

      I believe that’s called “bigotry.”

      How does that square with progressives always calling themselves “tolerant” and “inclusive”? Wouldn’t hating a man because of his opinions be called “hypocrisy”?

      • Croquet_Player

        No, he is hating his “opinions” not the person. I do not speak for him, or anyone else, but I would imagine he thinks all rights are due to that person. Housing, jobs, equal treatment in the marketplace, etc. See, this is the thing. I believe all U.S. citizens are entitled to rights. I might not be thrilled about it, and that’s fine, but a person or couple who wants to rent my apartment, and meets the qualifications, credit score, or recommendations, is able to rent that apartment. Do you understand? We are all protected from bigotry. Of any sort. (Except LGBT people), but we’re working on it. If a deeply Christian committed couple want to rent my apartment, well, come on in. I would welcome them. I might not agree with their views, but they are entirely welcome to rent from me. (And I hope we’ll become good neighbors and friends.)

        • The Skeptical Chymist

          Wonderful sentiments, well-expressed. Thank you.

        • ppp777

          You had to bring the sodomites into it , reprobates .

      • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

        It is “hypocrisy” although they deny it.

      • Michael C

        They said that Ham should be permitted to speak. How is that intolerant?

        I’m not sure you understand what the word bigotry means.

        • The Skeptical Chymist

          Thank you, Michael C. I haven’t been able to respond, due to life happening. Real life, not virtual life here in the comments section.

    • VETCON

      Why exactly do you disagree with him on scientific issues. Just wondering.

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        I think the most egregious scientific error he makes is his dismissal of the mountains of evidence (literally) that the earth is far older than thousands of years. The amount of evidence you have to ignore or explain away to come to the conclusion of a “young earth” is immense.

        Of course, I have a lot of other scientific issues with him, but that is the foundation of them all.

        • VETCON

          I will assume you are a Christian for this conversation. Let me ask you this:
          1. Do you believe the account of the great flood?
          2. Do you question the account of the Exodus?
          3. What about Job 41: 18-19 Aren’t you the least bit curious?
          4. Do you question the reserrection of our Lord?

          I too used to believe in certain evolutionary teachings, but no more. One cannot cherry pick what to believe inscripture. If I am to believe what I posed to you, then why would I not believe the creation account.

          Remember, God is not limited by what He created. The physical universe was spoken into existence. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

    • LynnRH

      And that’s totally their choice. Everyone has the right to believe in God or not believe in God. Those of us who do believe in God could think the same thing…..that people who only have a passing acquaintance with God’s Word could become hoodwinked by an educator who teaches non-Christian science. 🙂

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        Yes, you have the right to make that choice. But Ham’s ministry (or is it a tourist attraction? Can’t have it both ways) should not be subsidized by the county government with special tax deals.

  • Reason2012

    AiG has an amazing ministry in terms of their claimed desire of standing on the authority of God’s Word, but sheep in wolves clothing have gotten to that organization as well to do the biggest undermining possible on the authority of God’s Word as they imply God did not preserve His Word, that we just have to use whatever version we want and decide for ourselves which verses are God’s Word from which Bibles and which are not.

    One of the perverted Bibles they use, which was ‘translated’ from perverted Greek texts is the ESV. And the ESV is like the NIV and the Holman Christian Standard Bible have absolute agreement with the Roman Catholic New American Bible and the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation.

    Matthew 18:11
    KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
    ESV: Omitted
    NWT: Omitted
    NAB: Omitted

    Matthew 27:35
    KJB: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
    ESV: And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots.
    NWT: When they had impaled him they distributed his outer garments by casting lots.
    NAB: When they had crucified him, they divided his clothes among them casting lots.

    But a sampling of hundreds of perversions of God’s Word in the Greek texts that form these perverted Bibles, and AiG cites from the ESV, which utterly compromises God’s Word.

    Hopefully AiG rebuke these wolves and get back to citing God’s preserved Word, in English that being the KJV.

    • VETCON

      Do you know where Mr. Ham stands on the importance of baptism? Thank you for the information by the way.

      • Reason2012

        I have no idea to be honest. I would assume He has the biblical stance that it does not save, but is the first step of obedience after being saved – after being baptized by the Holy Spirit.

        Acts 8:36-38 “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”

        • VETCON

          Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38

          • Reason2012

            Yet the verse above makes it clear baptism by immersion in water happens after being saved – after being baptized by the Holy Spirit. So there are two baptisms here: being baptized by the Holy Spirit – the moment God saves a person – and being baptized then in water, identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

            In Acts 8, he’s pointing to the baptism of the Holy Spirit: repenting and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ – that’s the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

            The thief on the cross was never baptised, but repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and was saved as pointed out by Christ Himself, showing yet again baptism in water does not save, but baptism by the Holy Spirit is what saves – being born again.

            Luke 23:39-43 “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

            Afterwards we are to be baptized (fully immersed) in water to publicly identify with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

            Imagine reading Acts 8:36, and pointed out the thief on the cross being saved without being baptized in water, then someone comes along and shows you Acts 2:38. They seem to contradict each other, which of course God’s Word does not contradict itself, so we dig deeper to find out what the verse is speaking of – turns out it’s speaking of the baptizm of the Holy Spirit.

            Hope this helps!

          • VETCON

            Repentence without baptism does not save a person. If water baptism was not paramount to salvation, what was the point of Luke writing about the Ethiopian? “And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”

            Repent of your sins
            Confess Jesus before men
            Be baptised (immersion)
            Remain faithful

          • Reason2012

            We’re saved by grace, not by works – so God saves us, and evidence of our salvation is obedience to God, starting with being immersed in water. Being born again, baptized by the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God is what saves. Water baptism is the first command of obedience; publicly identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Just because it’s commanded after salvation doesn’t mean it’s part of salvation, any more than being commanded to be faithful and doing that earns salvation either..

            A person who is saved will obey to get baptized by water, and will also obey to be faithful to the best of their ability (but they won’t be perfect) – so make no mistake, we are commanded to be baptized and need to obey – that’s very different from claiming we have to do that to earn salvation. An unsaved person will only be faithful for so long but will eventually fall away (refer to parable of the sower).

            Furthermore, if water baptism saves, that means the thief on the cross was not saved as he only repented and trusted in Christ but was not baptized. Except Jesus pointed out the thief was now saved after he repented and proclaimed His trust in Christ – His belief that He was the only begotten Son of God. That alone rebukes the claim that water baptism saves a person.

            God gets the glory. When we instead think things we do earn salvation, we’re now trying to give ourselves some of the glory, as if we did something to earn it. We didn’t.

            Those who are not really saved will not remain faithful through life. Some take that to mean they didn’t earn salvation by being faithful (another works gospel), or lost it by not being faithful (again a saved-by-works gospel), when Scripture teaches they were never saved to begin with (again parable of the sower).

            In the end we’ll have to decide if we’re going to glorify God for His saving work – grace we did not earn nor deserve – or if we’re going to instead believe we’ve earned salvation, as if God owes it to us because of what we’ve done.

          • VETCON

            Being baptized does give God glory and it is required for salvation.

            Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. John 3: 5

            If I were to repeat the so called sinners prayer, which is not scriptural, is that all that is required. God’s grace will save me? I am saved by grace but James expounded on this. “But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” James 2:20.

            In other words, we must obey Christ which is in itself is a works but that works brings glory to God. Now the bible is quite clear on Baptism, however, if I repent of my sins, confess Jesus before men, and am baptised, but I continue willfully afterwards to sin, am I right with God? No!

            “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” Romans 6: 1-4

            There is something required on our part and that is obedience.

          • LynnRH

            Obedience is right. I know that we are still human even after salvation and will sin again as long as we continue to live in this God-forsakened world. But our responsibility is to learn His Holy Word so that we can know how we are to behave and how to share God’s Word with the lost. If we don’t work against sin in our lives but instead just continue purposefully sinning against Him that is like saying to Him, “Thanks but no thanks!” to His cruel, suffering death to allow us eternal life. A person needs to ask themselves if they would treat someone they love and who loves them back like that. If they would I think that person does not know what love is.

          • VETCON

            “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1

            I thank God everyday for His Son Jesus. Without Him I would be truly lost.

          • LynnRH

            I thank God everyday for His Son Jesus also. And even though I mess up on a daily basis in one way or another (not intentionally) I know He loves me anyway. Just like a child whose mother and/or father continues to adore even when that child messes up. I just can’t wait for the day I can live with Him eternally!

          • Reason2012

            (1) We cannot ignore the thief on the cross being saved without being baptized by water. Those who teach the doctrine that being baptized by water saves must ignore several verses in the Bible that clearly say otherwise. To believe baptism by water saves makes Jesus a liar. If “being baptized (by water) is required for salvation, then that claim makes Jesus Christ a liar when He told the thief on the cross he was going to heaven after he only repented and trusted on Christ.

            Even in Acts we’re told of a case where many were given the Holy Spirit (i.e., saved), and only after were then baptized with water.

            ”While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
            Acts 10:44-48

            So the doctrine of “being baptized by water saves” again makes God’s Word a lie. Which leads us to,

            (2) We can’t just take one verse, ignore the context of that verse, and ignore other verses in Scripture that contradict what we’re told that one verse means. For starters, John 3:5 cannot contradict Jesus pointing out a person is saved without water baptism. So what’s John 3:5 talking about? In that specific verse, Jesus is responding to a question about being born from the womb, about being born of water from the mother’s womb, and how can you be ‘born again’? So Jesus responds.

            John 3:4-5 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

            So Jesus is responding to a question about being born “again”, physically being born out the womb where we’re born of water, to say now we must be born again, this time by the Spirit.

            Obedience beings glory to God, but we must be careful not to confuse obedience to being saved to thinking we’re now earning or maintaining salvation by our obedience. Someone who’s not saved will not be obedient to the end. Obedience is some evidence that we’re likely saved – lack of obedience, lack of even caring about obedience, is a sign that our claim to faith is dead and we were never saved.

            (3) Yes, some are falsely told that praying a certain prayer saves us. But that doesn’t change the truth that God saves by grace. James 2:20 again would be citing one verse and ignore the rest of the verses. James, even verse 2:20, is about your faith. That your faith that supposedly saved you just an empty claim of salvation by faith as your works show you’re not really saved –not your works are what saves you.

            So if a person says “Yes, I believe in Christ” but they never read their bible, never pray, never go to church, never witness to others, their works show that they do not have saving faith but dead faith. You only know this is what James is saying if you read the rest of that chapter instead of one verse.

            (4)

            Now the bible is quite clear on Baptism, however, if I repent of my sins, confess Jesus before men, and am baptised, but I continue willfully afterwards to sin, am I right with God? No!

            Which proves baptism by water does not save. If a person is saved, they’re not going to “continue willfully afterwards in sin”. If a person is not saved, they will. This is evidence of whether or not their faith is true saving faith, or if it’s faked, dead faith, just like the book of James speaks of.

            Although we will not be perfect, those who are saved will be obedient. Those who are not will have no interest in being obedient, no interest in God’s Word (evidence by catholics for example). To claim that means we’re earning salvation, as if now salvation is of debt, is folly on our part.

            “What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.”
            Romans 4:1-9

            There are many verses that speak of salvation is by grace, not by works. We must take care, lest we be found before God calling His Word a lie, and try to imply that He owes us salvation because of our works.

          • VETCON

            Jesus was still alive here on Earth. He had the power to forgive at that time as well. He made a promise to the thief that I’m sure He kept. How could the thief been buried with Christ in baptism when Jesus had not been raised yet? Baptism is for those after our Lord’s reserrection.

          • ppp777

            You are simply teaching works salvation , no doubt about it .

          • VETCON

            “Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38

          • ppp777

            ” Believe upon the lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved ” , and the same with the eunuch when he asked the same question ., I could go on .

          • VETCON

            “As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. ”

            Baptism is required….

          • ppp777

            Baptism is works by definition , believing on Jesus was the gospel .

          • VETCON

            Mark 16:16

          • ppp777

            ” And those that don’t believe will be condemned “

          • VETCON

            He already mentioned Baptism! Was our Lord required to repeat it? No!

            I wipe the dust from my shoes….

          • ppp777

            Yes that would confirm it considering salvation is the most important doctrine in scripture ,and countless scripture backs me up you sarcastic sanctimonious git .

          • VETCON

            Wow. Jesus had all authority on earth to forgive sins and the bible is replete with example of that. The thief was forgiven by our Lord and was promised that he would be in paradise that day. What about the adultress? Her sins were forgiven.

            Baptism was not required until after His reserrection. I gave you plenty of scripture but you refuse to see it.

            Apologeticspress . Org has good information on this. They are out of Montgomery Alabama.

          • ppp777

            Baptism was never required for salvation , faith is and Abraham and Paul are very good examples of this not an apologist .

          • VETCON

            Contrary?

            Good-bye

          • Regeanvoter

            Now quote what Peter said prior to that. He was describing the entire conversion as asked to do so, the baptism quote follows acknowledging Jesus’ lordship. Seems to me, in this string you are trying to add requirements to Jesus’ free gift and He had some strong language about that sort of thing. Baptism is an act of obedience, not a statute of the so-called Salvation laws, otherwise the thief on the cross would never have heard Jesus tell him he was saved.

          • VETCON

            Acts 2:38
            Acts 8:36
            Romans 6: 4
            John 3:5
            Luke 3:21
            Matthew 28: 19

            Ultimately we are saved by Grace but we must obey the Gospel call and it boils down to repentence and baptism. I cannot understand why people will debate their way out of this truth. Furthermore, there is nothing scriptural about infant baptism as some practice. Babies no nothing about giving their lives over to Christ.

            No my friend, baptism is part of it as the Apostle Peter said.

          • Regeanvoter

            Please explain the thief on the cross.

          • VETCON

            Jesus had all authority to forgive sins and you will recall what He said to the thief. Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” Luke 23:43

    • ppp777

      Or just simply read the k j v in modern English , simple .

  • Croquet_Player

    Oh, I think Ken Ham and his friends must be allowed to speak. And then the University must allow some scientists to speak. Ken Ham is speaking from a religious perspective, and other people are speaking from a scientific perspective. That’s the just way it goes.

    • MCrow

      I see no issue with this

      • Croquet_Player

        You are very kind.

    • cadcoke5

      His presentation will not primarily be about religious faith. Rather, I expect him to talk about science. One aspect will be defending the accuracy of a document that talks about history.

      This will be no different than a speaker who talks about evolution. And it is important to note that evolution requires great faith to believe. It started with a historical document, created as Darwin observed finches with different sized beaks. Although many have lost faith in those writings, since Finches have been shown to “evolve” different sized beaks within a few seasons. With genetic mutation now being used to explain the process, it requires mutations that must happen against truly impossible odds. Odds that require many more years than what the evolutionists think is the age of the universe. This is why some have turned to faith in an infinite number of universes, even though there is no evidence of their existence.

      I think the above is part of why those who’s faith is in evolution strongly oppose permitting the other side to present their views. They know their faith in evolution is an easy target to shoot down.

      • Michael C

        Finches have been shown to “evolve” different sized beaks within a few seasons.

        I’m guessing you mean a few generations, not seasons. And how do relatively rapid evolutionary changes cast doubt on the process of natural selection? That makes the opposite of sense.

        [Evolution] requires mutations that must happen against truly impossible odds.

        You just got done explaining how rapidly an animal’s environment can shape their structure. What do you mean “odds?” Is that like the monkey/typewriter thing?

        People don’t have “faith” in science. They have understanding. That understanding is subject to change with new information. That’s the opposite of faith.

        • cadcoke5

          The finches weren’t generating new genetic information. Rather, they apparently were pre-programmed to have the ability to change. This ability is in the so-called junk DNA, that has often been cited as proof of evolution. The junk DNA has now been well established to serve a function. The head of the human genome has now said that he expects to find function is most of what was used to be junk DNA. This was a prediction by at least one creationists.

          Species don’t evolve into different kind, and that has never been observed, even in the fossil record.

          The constantly evolving views by evolutionists do not create confidence that it is true. This was a part of me loosing faith in evolution. I don’t know when the change from horse evolution being a rock-solid proof of evolution was dropped, in favor of whale evolution. You may be old enough to have been through that time. And now, all those part-way fossil of Rodhocetus, between land and sea creature, need to be thrown out, since a more complete skeleton of Rodhocetus was found with no blow-hole or flippers were there, like was imagined and put onto the fossil by evolutionists. It turned out to be a mythical creature. All these mythical creatures do nothing to help the argument for evolution, especially when they are so vigorously defended by evolutionists who have faith, rather than evidence to back up their claim.

          The million monkeys typing the works of Shakespere, is an extreme underestimation of what it would take for evolution of life. To be more realistic, you need a pack of wolves that eat a couple of monkeys a day. You need the majority of monkeys assigned to do things like gather food and procreate. Then, add that each typing monkey gets a wack on the head when ever they make a typo. After a few hundred wacks, they would start to look like hamburger.

          Evolution requires that a great many non-fatal mutations must occur, and be preserved through the generations, until enough of the good mutations create something that is beneficial enough to be preserved through natural selection.

          Concerning faith; What is it that causes evolutionists to believe that life spontaneously came into existence? Is there any evidence that it did?

          • Michael C

            Skepticism is what fuels knowledge and understanding. Skepticism can lead to discovery. Science is all about viewing everything critically with a skeptical eye. If an explanation for something doesn’t make sense, scientists work to prove it wrong or come up with a better explanation.

            This isn’t what Ham does.

            The constantly evolving views by evolutionists do not create confidence that it is true.

            I think this is where we fundamentally differ in worldview. I think our differences are irreconcilable. I trust a system that can admit when it’s wrong. Scientists actually get excited when they find out that they’ve been wrong about something.

            I guess some people prefer to believe that they have all the answers and that those answers are fixed and will never change. Some people find this comforting. I find it dubious.

            Concerning faith; What is it that causes evolutionists to believe that life spontaneously came into existence? Is there any evidence that it did?

            Scientists don’t “believe” that life spontaneously came into existence. We don’t know how life began. We know that life exists. Scientists hypothesize how that happened.

            It’s actually religious people who believe that they know how life spontaneously came into existence without any evidence. It’s religious people who hold these beliefs on faith, not scientists.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            Science is a process, in which there is never a fully accepted truth. All truth is provisional, subject to revision if additional facts come to light. Often, additional facts come in to show that processes we thought we understood are a bit more complicated (sometimes a lot more complicated) than we thought. This is certainly the case for biological processes, which are almost more complicated than we can ever hope to understand. Some seem to feel that the idea that all truth is provisional is a flaw, and that you can therefore never trust anything that science says. After all, everything could be revised when the next experiment is done. That is a false view. Science makes errors, but it detects and fixes its own errors. That is at the heart of what science is all about. It is a wonderful feature of science, not a bug.

            At one time, scientists thought that tuberculosis was caused by exposure to miasma – the fog that comes in humid environments when the temperature drops. This wasn’t all that long ago (about 200 years ago). When it was discovered that the disease could be explained by a microorganism, a bacterium, some would have said – that’s science! How can you ever trust anything any scientist says! But now we all agree that the tuberculosis bacterium causes the disease, and as a result of that correction to the provisional truth that tuberculosis was caused by exposure to miasma, we’ve even been able to develop antibiotics. And that correction was definitely a step forward.

            Theories of evolution, and of geological processes have likewise gone through changes since they were first put forward. Modern evolutionary theory is quite a bit removed from Darwin’s ideas. His ideas have been embellished, tested, clarified, and mechanisms for genetic change have been identified. He didn’t even know about genes or DNA, after all!

            The view that all truth is provisional, subject to change if additional facts come to light is something that most of us live with every day. We believe that our wives love us, but new evidence could cause us to re-evaluate that basic truth. We wake up in the morning believing that our car will be parked where we left it last night, but again, new evidence could convince us that is not true. We believe that the stomachache was caused by a bad ham sandwich, but a colonoscopy may cause us to realize that there was a different cause.

            It is only in matters of faith that we feel no need to be skeptical, and this is a great comfort. But when evidence presents itself, even faith should seek a way to incorporate the new evidence. I hope my faith in my wife never forces me to have to consider new evidence about my beliefs about her.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Species don’t evolve into different kind

            Give me the definition of the word “kind” in that context, because I don’t think I’ve ever seen one from a creationist, and creationists are the only ones to use it.

            Concerning faith; What is it that causes evolutionists to believe that
            life spontaneously came into existence? Is there any evidence that it
            did?

            What do you mean by “evolutionists”? (since, like “kind”, that’s a word pretty much only used by creationists) Do you mean people who accept the idea that life evolved from simple one-celled forms to its present state over millions of years? If that’s the case, perhaps you are forgetting that more Christians would fit that description than those who don’t. And wait though…..don’t YOU believe “life spontaneously came into existence” anyway? You (and theists in general) just claim to know WHY it did so, whereas science doesn’t and can’t even attempt to answer that question.

            But, as I’ve said a million times now, evolution doesn’t have anything to do with the origin of life, anyway.

          • cadcoke5

            Note, I am somewhat combining my reply, since three individuals have replied to my post.

            Chymist, I find it ironic that you mention, the germ theory of disease. This was proven and popularized by Creationist Louis Pasture.

            Rhye, When a creationist refers to “kind”, he is referring to Genesis Chapter 1. Specifically, it refers to how creatures reproduce more of the same kind of creature. Notably, it is these passages that inspired creationist Carl Linnaeus to ask “What did God mean by kind?” and then invented the classification system that we use today (with some changes).

            Michael said, “Scientists don’t “believe” that life spontaneously came into existence. ” Yet, I constantly see presentations, where evolutionists seem to believe life came about by chance processes, as opposed to the living eternal God.

            I do exercise similar skepticism to my views of history, including the Bible, as what you are describing about science.

            Regarding creationism as faith, and evolution as science;
            It may be that people involved with science issues and who are also in the public view, take a different stance than most. Because any people disagreeing on science issues, as they see them, tend to get labeled as a “science denier”.

            If a creationist mentions that radiometric dating of lava, for samples taken from lava, where we know the eruption date through historical records, will very often obtain dates in the millions of years, even though it should show it to be closer to a thousand. Is the creationist talking about faith or science?

            We are sometimes told that you must use the correct dating method, and not for instance use, C14 dating for samples evolutionist believe to be millions of years sold. As I understand radiometric dating, the method used should not change the date. Though, testing a sample with C14, a method which we can actually test against known dates for at least a few thousand years, should not show any measureable C14 if the sample were a million years old. But, when creationists submit a sample that evolutionists say is over a million years old (by hiding what it is, and who is requesting the dating), they get ages in the range of thousands, rather than millions of years. Is it the evolutionist or the creationist demonstrating faith in a method that doesn’t work?

            Faith or trust is something you do when you don’t have all the evidence in front of you. But you have had enough exposure to the subject at hand, to make a generalized judgment. The creationist has studied a record of history in the Bible, and found it to not be contradictory to the evidence we see now. Therefore he is apt to believe what it says, regarding things that are not things we can expect to find physical evidence. When we read in scripture that God created Adam and Eve and later that Noah went on the ark with his three sons, we tend to believe that those are true event. Annd since the genealogies in the Bible do not permit these people to have lived a hundred thousand years ago. When evolutionists say that mitochondrial “Eve” lived between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago, and Y-chromosome “Adam” lived around 200,000 to 300,000, we tend to mistrust them. Now I learn that they were getting their mutation rates by comparing chip DNA to human, rather than actually measured human DNA mutation rates. When the use the actual mutation rate, they end up with Eve being 6,000 to 6,500, and the Y-chromosome bottleneck (Noah actually, not Adam) they end up with a date consistent with the historical Noah. Any other genetic lines (if they existed) have died out.

            When an evolutionist rejects a finding, because it does not correlate with evolutionary assumptions, why is that a decision of science, and not faith. Likewise, when a creationist talks about dating methods or statistics regarding mutations, why does it earn the label “faith” rather than science?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Rhye, When a creationist refers to “kind”, he is referring to Genesis Chapter 1. Specifically, it refers to how creatures reproduce more of the same kind of creature

            And that’s different from species how exactly?

          • cadcoke5

            Linnaeus defined separate kinds as creatures that cannot breed with each other. Under that definition, there is only one dog kind, which includes wolves, great danes, and teacup chihuahuas..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            When an evolutionist rejects a finding, because it does not correlate with evolutionary assumptions

            If any scientist worthy of the name finds something that seems to challenge previous knowledge, they investigate it, find out if it really does, and if so, the previous knowledge is either modified or thrown out. That’s how science works. Many creationists start by assuming their interpretation of the Bible is 100% true and look for ways to make the data fit that assumption. “Answers in Genesis”, among others, basically comes right out and admits that. Actual quote from their website: “If conclusions contradict the truth revealed in Scripture, the conclusions are rejected.”

          • cadcoke5

            Like many Christians who grew up in the public schools, I accepted what I was taught there, as well as what I was taught in Sunday School. As Jr High kid, I knew enough about both to realize the incompatibility. My initial solution was to say that scripture is often analogy, and I just could not discern which was supposed to be analogy, and what was to be understood as actual history. But, that soon turned to simply doubting that scripture came from God, and that there was no evidence that God existed.

            Finally, I started to get a bit of information about evidence for the scriptural account of creation, and evidence against the evolutionary view of origins. It was like having the rug pulled out from under me. All of a sudden I saw that it was possible to accept scripture, and its ultimate author, without resorting to blind faith.

          • ppp777

            That’s a lie .

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What part of my post are you referring to?

      • TheKingOfRhye

        And it is important to note that evolution requires great faith to believe.

        No, it doesn’t. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Believing something because there is evidence for it is the exact opposite of faith.

        It started with a historical document, created as Darwin observed finches with different sized beaks.

        Actually, no, it didn’t start with Darwin, not the idea of evolution itself anyway. Darwin was just the first (along with Wallace) to figure out how it worked. Or, in other words, he came up with the theory of evolution.

        This is why some have turned to faith in an infinite number of universes, even though there is no evidence of their existence.

        Not all scientists agree, but some think there is evidence for the existence of multiple universes. Therefore, it’s not “faith” at all. And anyway, I don’t think even they take it as anything more than a hypothesis at this point. I’ve read a little about that myself, and to be honest, some of that stuff goes right over my head. I think the idea of multiple universes makes sense in a few different ways, but I just don’t know.

        • cadcoke5

          Evolution does not describe any supernatural intervention to overcome the extreme odds necessary to get the new genetic information necessary to define a new kind of creature. The infinite multiple universes thing is one way to overcome this.

          I have read one proposed way to see if there might be areas where other universes “bumped” into ours when it spontaneously appeared. But, I have not read of any actual evidence observed. Do you have a source?

          All sorts of things start to be possible when you have infinitive possibilities. Nearly all the universes wold not even be able to form matter, because the various forces present in our universe have to be so extremely fine tuned, to allow atoms to form, but not so much that everything goes into a black hole. But, as long as you have infinity, an infinite number of universes happen to form an exact duplicate earth, which includes you, as an exact duplicate, and a me that is typing this note. And there are also an infinite number of earths where, when I wanted to go to the grocery store, all of my atoms simultaneously moved in the correct direction, avoided anything in the way, and I just appeared in the grocery store. This is a version of the “infinite improbability drive” from the “Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy”. Soon, others realized that if the number of universes is not remote, it is much more likely that our current universe evolved into a cosmic mind, in which we are figments of that mind’s imagination.

          Regarding Christians who accept evolution. I think they are ignoring the testimony of God’s word.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I know that some people thought the cosmic background radiation was somehow evidence for multiple universes, but that idea was pretty much debunked. I really don’t know what, if any, new evidence for that has been found lately. But, like I said, it’s not generally held to anything more than a hypothesis. No scientists are going around saying it’s a fact, so it’s not a matter of “faith”.

            One thing I like about the idea is that it rather neatly answers any questions about the universe seeming to be “fine-tuned” for us. If there’s an infinite number of universes with different conditions, then of course there will some, or at least one I guess, with the right conditions for people to be in to ask those kinds of questions in the first place.

  • Regeanvoter

    Those who attempt to say that the Constitution forbids any allowance of citing Christian faith on campuses have no understanding of Constitutional law. In fact, it may be that many universities and public schools are in violation of the establishment clause by enforcing the religion of humanism onto their student bodies and refusing those students to freely express their own faiths.

    • LynnRH

      You are sooooo right!