Answers in Genesis Responds to a Listener Comment on SermonAudio
The following is a detailed response given by Answers in Genesis to specifically answer a comment left by a SermonAudio listener on an audio by Ken Ham. Click here to view the original comment and to listen to the audio for yourself! The original listener comments are in bold below.
First of all I want to say great sermon really!!
But one big point is left out and that is the assumption creationists have which is that the bible is all true. Why is there God? Because the bible says so and why is the bible the truth? Because it's the word of God. That's really just talking in circles.
Actually, we don't take that stance, we are presuppositional. We take as our axiom that God exist and that His Word, the Bible, is truth. From here, we let it explain the world. Here are a couple of articles that should help explain presuppositions a little better:
Also, in the words of Jonathan Sarfati from this feedback:
No, but this is not our argument. Rather, it would be worth seeing this answer to the charge of circular reasoning. For one thing, the circle is easily broken; for another, the alleged circular reasoning is to show the self-consistency of our chosen axioms-the propositions of Scripture. All philosophical systems start with axioms (presuppositions), or unprovable propositions accepted as true, and deduce theorems from them. Therefore Christians should not be faulted for having axioms, as explained in Creation: 'where's the proof?'
So the question for any axiomatic system is whether it is self-consistent and is consistent with the real world. The self-consistency is explained above, and as will be seen, Christian axioms provide the basis for a coherent worldview, i.e. a thought map that can guide us throughout all aspects of life.
Non-Christian axioms fail these tests. E.g. science requires certain premises to work, and they are deductions from biblical axioms, as shown in this response, while atheism does not provide this justification from within its own framework. Also, atheism must postulate certain unprovable beliefs that go against observable science, as shown in this reply to an atheist.
Also, the Christian axioms provide a basis for objective morality. Please understand what I am saying here-not that atheists can't be moral but that they have no objective basis for this morality from within their own system, as explained in this response. The fanatical atheistic evolutionist Dawkins admits that our 'best impulses have no basis in nature.' So Dawkins makes a leap of faith to say that we should be 'anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality', that we should 'rebel' against our selfish genes, etc. But his own philosophy can't justify the 'shoulds'.
Besides that he keeps on asking whether or not we were thrown together by pure chance into full-blown people. That's not the point nor is it a valid point.
Why isn't it a valid point?
If you believe in evolution, you believe it started with the tiniest 1celled lifeform which came probably from plantlife which came from water.
Actually, it goes back much further in evolution. First, there was allegedly a point where nothing created a singularity and time began. Then this singularity expanded in a Big Bang. This is cosmic evolution. Then there was "geologic evolution" where the earth formed through the geologic time of an alleged billions of years.
Then non-life allegedly gave rise to life in an atmosphere without oxygen and definitely not water. This single celled life form allegedly built up with new information on its genome to get complex information for eyes, ears, nose, lungs, brain ,etc. then man allegedly finally arrived after billions of these information-gaining mutations.
So why is it so hard to believe that gradually things get more advanced through mutations (which Ken said to believe in even)?
First to clarify, Ken didn't say they get more advanced. Perhaps you are confusing natural selection with evolution. Natural selection was developed by a Christian named Ed Blyth about 25 years before Darwin and helps explain variation within the created kinds. Here is an excellent article on this:
Second, we don't observe life forms building up with new information. There are only a handful of disputable examples. For evolutionary advancement, there needs to be billions of these information gaining mutations. Things are moving in the wrong direction for gradual evolution. Please see:
And another thing he said, was that information doesn't come from matter, so our DNA can't just have become out of nothing so someone has to have put it there.
Yes. This has been shown by Dr Werner Gitt, a leading information theorist from Germany in his book 'In the Beginning was Information'. Here is an article on it:
As the word DNA in itself says it's an acid what we make out of it is our interpretation so it's not like words in a language, for which the language has to be there before the words,
Not so. The language does have to be there otherwise the reading steps of the DNA transcription and translation of a gene would be impossible. Even the secular world understands this:
It is often called the Universal Genetic Code.
it's a system purely material which we turn in to letters to help us understand it.
I agree that the letters used merely represent the proteins such as cytosine is C, etc. But one can't neglect that it is a code system. The arrangement of the C, G, A, and T, makes a code that is readable in the Universal Genetic Code. In the same way, when I write a sentence on a piece of paper with a pencil, it is purely material - graphite. Yet, it has a meaning, grammar, syntax, etc where those speaking English (okay American English :) can understand it.
The same type of information transfer can be done with other languages systems such as Chinese, Morse code and even binary (computer language). There is a sender and a receiver of information and a code by which to interpret what is sent. I highly suggest you get and read the book 'In the Beginning was information'.
Even the analogy of the language was completely false because someone doesn't and can't even create a language it's an intersubjctive thing
Then were does language come from? Men have developed many computer languages such as Fortran, Pascal, C++, etc. I would expect that men, who are made in the image of God, could develop a language.
After all, God created Adam with a programmed language in Genesis 1. Also, God divided the earth with a language barrier at the Tower of Babel. So it is logical that God was the one responsible for the language used for DNA. It is not a problem for Bible believers to understand that God created this complex code used in DNA.
Answers in Genesis